EARLY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE

The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.

This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).

Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)

In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)

Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."

Greetings:

I think I sent you a link with the Canons from the 2 Councils of Constantinopile 381 and 382. The Synod Letter speaks of a Council in Rome around that same time, i.e the Often debated Council of Rome in 382 that some protestant internet theologians say never existed. There is also a mention of a Tome from the Western Church. Most Catholic Scholars, save a few infected by modernist ideas, suggest this Tome is likely from Pope Damasus. Yes, there were some additions to it added by Pope Gelasius, such as a quote by Saint Augustine, but that does not mean the entire document was a 5th century work of Pope Gelasius.

http://thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-canon-of-scripture-damasus-and.html

The Reformed Church Historian, P. Schaff has an interesting commentary on the COuncils of Constantinopile and just “What the Tome of the Western Church actually was”, he concludes it is likely from Pope Damasus and represents the Decrees of that Pope. He states there are fragments Damasus decrees which are valid, and yes, there were additions added to them by Pope Gelasius and maybe a few by an Roman priest in the 6th century, but that does not refute that 1) There was a Council in Rome in 380-382, and 2) A Decree/Tome from Pope Damasus was issued. Of course, Von Dobschutz was part of the Higher critical German movement of theology so, not trying to attack his person, he was likely a fine gentleman, but personally, I am always skeptical of higher critics, Catholic ones included.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html

No one is arguing the canon of Trent did not have ancient support (as did the Prot one), even with fallible councils supporting it, but that it was not settled, not indisputable, and those who debated this even within Trent obviously did not see your view of a settled canon.

It remains that as the Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) ^

As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)

Thus Luther was no maverick dissenting from a settled canon all held to, as RC blaming him for, anachronistically reading post Trent Rome back into history.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Enough pasted, and typed

well, I most admit, my hands hurt like crazy from typing. In addition, I played 18 holes of golf both Saturday and Sunday so my hands are indeed numb!.

Ok, so you we can at least agree that Trent was the final definition and as I said, the “Most definitive” and thus while the term infallible was not used, in essence it was an infallible definition for as the current Cathechism states, repeating in essence what Trent said, “The Complete list is called the canon of scripture” [CCC 120]. Still, there indeed definitions of the Canon well before that were the same canon that Trent “infallibly” and “Definitively” defined. So Trent finally put the issue to rest and yes there was debate but every time there was a debate going back to the late 4th century, the canon defined at Trent was the canon that was defined every time before it going back to the 4th century.

As for Pope Damasus, can we now agree that there indeed was a Council in Rome that meet circa 382AD, per the Canons and Letters from the Council of Constantinople. So these internet so called protestant apologist posting on their blogs no such Council happened is incorrect. I will take a measure of goodwill and assume out of ignorance, not hatred of Catholicism. Now as for the Decree-Tome of Pope Damasus, two of my Catholic sources, both recent, Fr. Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, Volumes 1-3, published in 1979. In his Introductory Notes on the Council of Constantinopile, he states that a Doctrinal Tome drawn up at the Council is not extant [I think in Greek], although there are some who believe that 23 Doctrinal ananathemas in an Arabic Collection are likely from that Council. Jurgens notes (p.398 of Volume 1] that those Arabic 23 anathemas’ are identical to the 23 in the Tome of Damasus. Still, the exact link between the Arabic 23 anathamas and Damasus Tome has not yet been directly established. However the canons from that Council, which were in Greek, are extant.

Jurgens in his Introductory notes on Pope Damasus and his Tome and Decrees notes that the Tome of Damasus is in fact a work from the Council of Rome (382AD). He notes in this Introduction that the 23 Arabic anathamas are likely a summary of the Doctrinal tome drawn up at the Council of Constantinopile in 381AD and this Arabic summary is again, identical to the Tome of Damasus. Now, in addition to the Letter that notes a Council going on in Rome under Damasus. In addition, Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinopile in 382 [preserved erroneously as Canon 5 in the 381 Council] refers to a reception of a Tome from the Western Church. If we conclude, as it seems likely, that this Tome was from Damasus, along with the 3 Decrees, and these were sent from Rome in 382 to the Council in Constantinople meeting that same year to respond to the arrogance of the Council in 381 [for example, Decree 3 mentions that Constantinople making itself 2nd in Primacy is a violation of the Council of Nicea Canon 6 and it reiterates that Due to the connection to Saint Peter, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch hold the 3 highest primacies], it becomes easy to account for the Arabic collection of anathemas, which are almost identical to the ones of Pope Damasus, and which as noted, were presented as part of the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Jurgens continues and states that if the Tome of Damasus was sent to Council being held in 382, when the canons of that council became mixed with the canons Council of Constantinopile in 381, it could easily have happened that the Tome of Damasus also became attached to the Acts of that Council of 381AD and when translated into Arabic, the impression would be that the anathemas of the Tome of Damasus belonged to the Acts of Constantinople 381 Tome.

As a quick note, the Tome of Damasus anathemizes Sabellius and his error, Arius and then the Macedonians, who were the ones that the Council of Constantinople were meeting about. They were questioning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For example Tome 16 states “If anyone does not say the Holy Spirit is truly and properly of the Father, just as the Son, of the Divine substance and true God, he is a heretic” Tome17 states “If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit can do all things, knows all, and is everywhere, just as the Father and Son, he is a heretic. Tome 18, If anyone says the Holy Spirit is a creature, or He was made by the Son, he is a heretic. Tome 20 states “If anyone does not say of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that here is one Godhead, one strength, majesty, power, glory, he is a heretic. Tome 21 states, If anyone does not say that there are Three Persons of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, equal, always living, embracing all things visible and invisible, ruling all...He is a heretic.

Again, citing Schaff, he notes that we still have extant portions of the Tome of Damasus which contain anathemas. The Decrees, the first 3 are extant to Damasus [Fr. Jurgens (1979) and New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1990), although there was some editing to them done by Pope Gelasius who in a Council at Rome in 494, published the works of the Church Fathers in a volume, listed heretical books and attached a canonical list, but as the New Advent article on Pope Gelasius notes, this work was done most likely by Pope Damasus [note this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia published in the early 20th century].

Again, see Schaff’s notes on the COuncil of Constantinople and the Tome of the Western Church, which he does attribute to Pope Damasus

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html

Scaff also describes why the Council of Constantinople was not viewed as an Ecumenical Council in the West until much later. Even then, only the Creed was accepted, not the canons. The canon at hand was Constantinople making itself 2nd in the rank of the Primacy. Jurgens again mentions the 3 Decrees which are extant. The 1st Decree deals with the Holy Spirit, which the Tome deals with exclusively. The 2nd one, dealing with the canon of Scripture has been known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, but Jurgens notes that it is commonly held that that part of the Gelasian decree is now an authentic work of the Council of Rome in 382, not the Council held in 494 under Pope Gelasius and then with respect to Decree 3 which reiterates the Primacies as defined in Canon 6 of Nicea, Jurgens clearly attaches it to Pope Damasus, not Pope Gelasius.

I think a couple of reasons, 1 with respect to the Canon Decree (#2), the canon in the West was not a major issue at the time of Pope Gelasius. With Pope Innocent I’s Letter and the work of Saint Augustine and the North African Councils, confirmed by Pope Boniface, the canon in the West never really surfaced as an issue that needed Papal Letters or Councils again till the Council of Basle-Florence in 1442 when the Catholics and Orthodox tried to restore communion and of course Trent. Decree 3 [Primacy of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and now Constantinople putting itself as 2] makes sense in the context of being around 382 given in 381, this was the first time Constantinople in 381 challenged Canon 6 of Nicea. By the end of the 5th century when Pope Gelasius was Bishop of Rome, this issue would not be dealt with the way it was written in the 4th under Damasus. By that time, Constantinople at Chalcedon did it again so that letter, in the way it was written fits the 4th century, not the late 5th.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.x.html

well, I most admit, my hands hurt like crazy from typing. In addition, I played 18 holes of golf both Saturday and Sunday so my hands are indeed numb!.

No golfing (maybe football) for me or playing games on Sunday, but my fingers are increasingly stiff due to arthritis, so that my fingers do hardly move independently, usually resulting in multiple typos per sentence and little touch typing, so it takes awhile, long with mental fatigue. But God looks at what one does with what he has, (2Cor. 8:12) and thus the Lord's commendation, "she hath done what she could," (Mk. 4:8) not that i all have, and can multiply what we offer Him. (Mt/. 14:17-21) Now to always have that attitude.

Ok, so you we can at least agree that Trent was the final definition

So we can at least agree that Trent "was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

And that doubt and disagreement continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent , so that Luther was not a maverick in his non-binding present judgment on the canon, and which, as with church "fathers," was part of his theological development. The page to see on Luther and the canon is here , while Protestantism did not follow him as a pope even in regards to his canon.

In any case, even if you had an "infallible" canon from the 4th century under a pope who employed a murderous gang in seeking to secure his papal seat, of what import is this? The issue is the very premise of the assured veracity of Rome. Regarding this, the more foundational issues which we do not both agree on is that,

1. Scripture materially provides for the magisterial office as an indispensable part of the visible church, yet an assuredly infallible magisterium is not essential for providence and assurance of truth, including discerning both writings and men of God as being so, and preservation of faith.

2. Being the instrument, steward and discerner of both writings and men of God and inheritors of promises or God's presence, guidance and preservation, does not require or promise assured infallibility.

3. The laity can be right while the magisterium is wrong, and God often provides and preserves Truth by raising up men from with the magisterium to reprove it.

4. Both writings and men of God are what they are regardless of whether the powers that be - which are sppsd to affirm them as being so - do so or not.

5. While conciliar decrees are proper in affirming both writings and men as being of God, the establishment of such is essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation. (Ps. 19:7-11)

6. Scripture is the supreme transcendent standard for testing and est. Truth claims, as it is abundantly evidenced to be.

7. OT Scripture materially provided for the recognition of both Christ and additional conflative complementary writings, and thus for a canon.

I have not followed this, as i thought GPH was dealing with it, and despite all the attention you give it, it is not a critical issue in the light of the above, and the fact that scholarly doubts and disagreement continued, as no infallible definition was provided. But as far as i know the charge is not that Council in Rome did not exist, but that the Gelasian decree was a later work.

“What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. (Source: F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], p. 97)

Lacking a written formal record of the proceedings at the Council of Rome, it seems there is a lot of historical speculation about the decree of the Canon by Damasus.

. Now as for the Decree-Tome of Pope Damasus, two of my Catholic sources, both recent, Fr. Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, Volumes 1-3, published in 1979.

I have not read him, but have seen his integrity impugned for allegedly for passing along forged and fake documents as if they were real or due to misuse of using partial statements of major Church fathers, interpreting them as supportive of papal primacy.

Yet he also affirms such thing as that Gregory the Great (a doctor of the Church and bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604) met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year 578, who asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job, which he completed in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. (The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume III, p. 313.)

But in which pope Gregory denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees [stating the position of the Church of his day] long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical , yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46). (Joseph Gildea, Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991, Part 1, Book 3, p. 126.)

Of course, this is just one example of how unsettled the canon was until Trent.

And Jurgens favors Augustine over all others.

If we were faced with the unlikely proposition of having to destroy completely either the works of Augustine or the works of all the other Fathers and Writers, I have little doubt that all the others would have to be sacrificed. Augustine must remain. Of all the Fathers it is Augustine who is the most erudite, who has the most remarkable theological insights, and who is effectively most prolific (William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Vol. 3, p. 1).

Yet faced with support from him for Reformed views, Augustine has been treated with scorn by other RC apologists.

Again, see Schaff’s notes on the COuncil of Constantinople and the Tome of the Western Church, which he does attribute to Pope Damasus

But as re the Decretal of Gelasius, later the Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) finds , "The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling....

But as said, the very premise of an infallible magisterium being essential for the providence and assurance of Truth, and that Rome is it (thus her canon must be held), is the real issue.

Daniel1212:

Whoever put the Decretal Togther is not the issue. The issue is what was put into it. What were the documents, where did they come from. There was no canonical debate going on during the late 5th century so Pope Gelasius and a Council in Rome in 494 did not address the canon. So whoever put the Decretal together, and it contained among other things, a updated translation of the Church Fathers, a list of heretical books, an a canonical List. So, whoever put the Decretal together, lets say it was a Roman Priest who did it and put it under the Pope’s name is not relevant. What was put into it, i.e. the canonical list was not something drawn up in 494, for lists going back to the COuncil of Carthage in 419AD had 46OT and 27NT, which was confirmed by Pope Boniface, Pope Innocents Letter to Bishop Exsurpius in 405 contains the same 46OT and 27NT and Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397, along with Saint Augustine’s listing in Christian Doctrine had a list, and of course the Council of Rome in 382 would, in that time, be dealing with the canon as it was under debate full force at that time. Damasus, in directing Jerome to do a Vulgate Translation of the Bible directed him of course to follow the Tradition of the Church and given that Jerome conceded to translating the 46OT and 27NT canon, Damasus at the Council of Rome putting together a Canonical List is legitimate.

Fr. Jurgen’s is only impugned among Protestants. That is polemical BS. I have read P. Scaff’s translation of the Fathers and his commentary, he downplays anything that hints a Catholic, because he is Reformed. Should I impugn his integrity are just realize that his ex ante Reformed theology shapes how he writes things in his translations of the Fathers.

Pope Gregory may have personally thought 1 Mac was non-canonical, yet he never ordered it out of the Catholic Canon. In this case, this was his personal theological opinion, but he did not impose his personal view against the constant tradition that came before him. Popes can and do have personal theological opinions, but they also are bound to defend and protect the faith. Gregory was a Great Pope and while I am aware of his views, what you will not see is Gregory calling a council to reexamine the Canon. The reason is, it did not happen. The canon during Gregory the Great’s time was the canon of Pope Boniface (419), Innocent I [405] time and Damasus in 382.

As for Saint Augustine, when you say “apologist” you are referring to Lay Catholics who go to Protestant “internet theologians [apologist} to use your word] and argue. No Catholic Scholar denies Saint Augustine’s theology, what they do reject is Reformed misuse of it. The Eastern Orthodox do however, believe that Augustine’s theology is to much the dominate thought in Catholic theology, but the Catholic Church has always viewed Augustine as one of the 4 Great Doctors of the Church in the Roman-Latin Tradition.

As for Bruce, whom you site, that is his opinion, although it is purely conjecture. Fr. Jurgen’s takes the opposite view and I think his arguments are much more solid given the sources he sites, the canons from the Council of Constantinople and the Synod Opening Letter speak of a Council in Rome under Damasus and “Tome from the Western Church” Phillip Scaff, who I think is much more cited as a Protestant Church History and Patristic Scholar compared to Bruce [who I admit, I know nothing about], has a detailed Introductory on the Council of Constantinople and he concludes that the Tome mentioned was indeed from Pope Damasus from around 380. The Decrees, which were part of the Tome, are attached to it, are in historical context, dealing with issues in the 4th century, not the early 6th.

And again, you are repeating Von Dobschutz’s arguments, which hing on a quote from Saint Augustine to argue that everything in it most be after that date. That is faulty as it could also mean that the Decretal added works from after the time of Damasus into one work.

As to murderous gang? Are you saying Pope Damasus was killer, Was Pope Innocent, Boniface, Leo the Great? I really am not sure what you are doing with this so I am just going to leave it alone.

and of course the Council of Rome in 382 would, in that time, be dealing with the canon as it was under debate full force at that time.

Indeed, and while you spend a lot of space on this, the fact remains that this canon certainly did not have the unanimous consent of the father, or settle it.

Damasus, in directing Jerome to do a Vulgate Translation of the Bible directed him of course to follow the Tradition of the Church and given that Jerome conceded to translating the 46OT and 27NT canon,

Compelled is the word, going against his own judgment, and the judgment of other men of great weight. You are preoccupied with showing the antiquity of the Tridentine canon but you are missing the point, which is that the Prot canon also has antiquity, and what Rome decrees as true does not make it true. She has provided ample evidence for her lack of credibility. And if Prots are to be condemned for holding to the old 22 Hebrew book canon, then you must condemn revered Catholic men of old as well, among which is..

Epiphanius of Salamis (310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, wrote, "There are twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted AS TWENTY-TWO, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which the Jews reckon as five are double." (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi Studies, edited by Martin Krause, James Robinson, Frederik Wisse (Leiden; Brill), 187)

Gregory of Nazianzus (329[1] – 25 January 389 or 390) 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople, "Receive the number and names of the holy books ... These TWENTY-TWO books of the Old Testament are counted according to the twenty-two letters of the Jews." (Dogmatica Carmina, Book I, Section I, Carmen XII, PG 37:471-474)

Hilary of Poitiers (300 –368), Bishop of Poitiers, stated, The Law of the Old Testament is reckoned IN TWENTY-TWO BOOKS, that they might fit the number of Hebrew letters. They are counted according TO THE TRADITION OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. (Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue, Dr. Michael Woodward, Translator)

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386), distinguished theologian of the early Church: "Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament teach us ... Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the old testament, these that have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters. (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2, Vol. 7, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33-36)

Basil of Caesarea, Basil the Great, (329 or 330 – January 1, 379), "Why 22 divinely inspired books? I respond that in place of numbers ... For it should not be ignored that the 22 books of the Jews handed down, which correspond to the number of Hebrew letters, are not without reason 22. Just as the 22 letters are the introduction to wisdom, etc. so too the 22 books of Scripture are the foundation and introduction to the wisdom of God and the knowledge of things." (Philocalia, c. 3, edition of Paris 1618, p. 63)

Fr. Jurgen’s is only impugned among Protestants. That is polemical BS.

That is not true if it has been shown, and for that you would have engage those who examine his use of texts and find fault with them. Thus the links.

Pope Gregory may have personally thought 1 Mac was non-canonical, yet he never ordered it out of the Catholic Canon. In this case, this was his personal theological opinion,

Rather, he did not express it as his personal theological opinion, but as being the canon of the church. Jurgens affirms that Gregory wrote his commentary while he was pope. It is hardly tenable to think he would even express a personal opinion contrary to a settled canon/

And in later testimony to the degree the canon was not settled, just before the Reformation you have Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, who in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. In the Preface, he states in regard to the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine. He does say that the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. Both the Bible and its Preface had the official consent and authority of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:

"The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcala (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1517, under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, ‘to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures. (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo7.htm)

Those Lay Catholics would be offended that another lay RC reproved them, but my mention of RCs rejecting Augustine was an aside. I would let GPH get into the Augustine issue.

As for Bruce, whom you site, that is his opinion, although it is purely conjecture....you are repeating Von Dobschutz’s arguments, which hing on a quote from Saint Augustine

Perhaps i can look into that more, but again what the Council of Rome may have did does not change the fact that the canon was not really settled until Trent, "That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, p 26 .

As to murderous gang? Are you saying Pope Damasus was killer, Was Pope Innocent, Boniface, Leo the Great? I really am not sure what you are doing with this so I am just going to leave it alone.

That relates to the fundamental issue my 7 points in my post that you ignored here were about, and that makes this whole issue of a settled canon relevant.

Just to be clear. This is the part of the post I was referring to when I wrote "ROTFLMAO!"

As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. We explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author's intentions in any other book.

This statement is a perfect example of a belief system so mired in insular self-service and arrogance that it is impossible for reason and truth to be heard. To argue that it is not strains one's belief that the person on the other side has the capacity of basic reason. I am sure the intent is not to do so, but it nevertheless delivers a message of disrespect and underlying mockery of the sincere faith of millions of other brothers and sisters in Christ. Upon reading it, I could not help but believe that the original poster was writing it facetiously.

I imagine that if you could interview the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law of Jesus' day, they would make precisely the same arguments for not accepting Christ's teaching. This kind of insular belief system, that can accept no truth except one that occurs to itself, spreads death, not life.

I am a believer, and rely on the scriptures as inspired by God - regardless of the humanity and personal fallibility of the original writers, practitioners, and leaders of the faith. And every single one of them, regardless of how incredible they were, were fallible and human. They would be the first to tell you. Remember the Apostle Paul had to rebuke the Apostle Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11-14). Somehow God's perfect message about who he is revealed by Jesus Christ overcomes all our fallibility and is perfectly capable of speaking directly to the individual believer.

The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope or anyone else has been a scourge on humanity since its conception. Mankind continues to suffer as it pays the bitter dividends of this particular doctrine to this day. Intended or not, it undermines the basic tenets of the gospel message.

That being said, I respect any person who proclaims Christ regardless of how deeply I may disagree with him on a point of faith. I have many dear friends who are Catholics, who are very faithful, sincere brothers and sisters in Christ who inspire me to be faithful. I hope I do the same for them. Please interpret my very direct comments of disagreement in the spirit of a brother in the faith.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.