Ooh, he said ‘chair’” – “Florilegia” vs. the Reformation discipline of Textual Criticism</a>

Beggars All ^ | March 08, 2011 | - James Swan

[RnMomof7]

Ooh,ooh, he said ‘chair’” – “Florilegia” (“assertions of authority”) vs. the Reformation discipline of Textual Criticism

When you’ve been involved with the sort of Protestant-vs-Roman-Catholic argumentation that we deal with on a daily basis, it’s easy to discern some patterns. As Turretin noted in the 17th century, the Roman Catholic method of defending itself is to make a claim of over-arching authority; this claim is asserted and re-asserted, as if the re-assertion carries more weight than the original assertion.

This method of argument-by-authority was very common in the early medieval years. In fact, the long lists of patristic citations that we often see have their origin in the medieval “florilegia,” which actually were books, or lists of patristics citations. The one whose list of citations was more authoritative carried the day. Peter Lombard’s “Sentences” was just such a book of citations. And once Lombard’s “Sentences” was established as authoritative, then every theologian had to “comment” on Lombard’s “Sentences”. This is just how the business was practiced back then.

The Medieval Historian Jacques Le Goff describes this practice:

Some of the sureties were especially favoured and referred to as ‘authorities’. Obviously it was in theology, the highest branch of learning, that the use of authorities found its greatest glory, and, since it was the basis of spiritual and intellectual life, it was subjected to strict regulation. The supreme authority was Scripture, and, with it, the Fathers of the Church. However, this general authority tended to take the form of quotations. In practice these became ‘authentic’ opinions and, in the end, the ‘authorities’ themselves. Since these authorities were often difficult and obscure, they were explained by glosses which themselves had to come from an ‘authentic author’ [or, an “authentic interpreter” who could “tell us what this means.”]

Very often the glosses replaced the original text. Of all the florilegia [collections of quotations] which conveyed the results of intellectual activity in the Middle Ages, the anthologies of glosses were consulted and ransacked the most. Learning was a mosaic of quotations or ‘flowers’ which, in the twelfth century, were called ‘sentences’ (sententiae or opinions). The collections or summae of sentences were collections of authorities. Robert of Melun was already protesting in the middle of the twelfth century against according credit to glosses in these sentences, but in vain. [The 20th century Dominican theologian] Pere [Marie-Domenique] Chenu acknowledged that the sentences of the inferior thinker Peter Lombard, which was to be the theology textbook in universities in the thirteenth century, was a collection of glosses “whose sources can only be discovered with difficulty”, and furthermore that, even in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, “one can see a largish number of texts acting as authorities which can only be identified through the distortions of the glossae.”

Of course the men who used authorities stretched their meanings to the point where they barely impeded personal opinions. Alain of Lille, in a saying which was to become proverbial, stated ‘the authority has a wax nose which can be pushed in all directions’… (Jacques Le Goff, “Medieval Civilization,” (First published in France as La Civilisation de l’Occident Medieval, © 1964 by B. Arthaud, Paris) English Translation, © 1988, 1990, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pgs. 325-326.)

So as we can see, Roman Catholics have been historically conditioned to swallow, unquestioningly, long, untrue assertions of authority. It wasn’t until the rise of the Reformation-era discipline of textual criticism that such things were found out and able to be catalogued.


Bryan Cross’s article on The Chair of St. Peter is not the first place where he’s listed a long string of patristic quotes to support the idea that there was some sort of notion that there was anything like an early papacy in place.

In a previous discussion when Bryan had done this, Turretinfan worked through the entire list (a) tracking down sources, (b) providing greater context, and (c) providing some much-too-kind analysis. The bottom line is that virtually none of these “patristics citations” meant what Bryan thought they did, and if they did say what he was saying, they turned out to be forgeries in some way.

Pastor David King pointed this out to Bryan Cross; in fact, in doing so, he cited the Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar. Keep in mind who Congar was, and his importance. According to Avery Dulles, “Vatican II could almost be called Congar’s Council”. Here, in short, is the Congar quote that Bryan disagreed with. (Again, I’ll refer you to Turretinfan’s much-too-kind article and also the original source of the quote at Green Baggins for context):

it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy (from Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399).

So Rome, and Rome alone, is said to have asserted its own authority. In response to this, Bryan posted a long series of citations, which seemed to have been showing that the early church – in all places, outside of Rome, somehow thought that there was an early papacy.

Let’s look at how Bryan’s first set of citations ended up. I’ll just reproduce Turretinfan’s conclusions here, but the reader may feel free to look at T-fan’s explanations for each one of these. The cumulative effect is quite impressive:

I. In General - it is important to note up front that Bryan’s thesis itself does not contradict what Congar said....Secondly, this list is obviously cut-and-paste....Also, perhaps as an artifact of the cut-and-paste, Bryan has Hilary writing something that’s actually an amalgamation of different items, cobbled together by some editor (Bryan?).

II. Ephraim the Syrian - In short, this work is probably not a work written by Ephraim the Syrian....this work does not appear to exist in a complete English translation. This suggests to me, though obviously it does not prove it, that Mr. Cross is reliant on a secondary source that has provided him only with the quotation itself, and not with the context.

III. Hilary of Poitiers - the alleged quotation from Hilary is actually an amalgamation of various quotations, cobbled together by some editor (Bryan?)....this particular sentence has been identified as questionable - a possible later interpolation, because of its terrible Latin....So, we are at a dead end here. Is this really Hilary? Who knows! I would be surprised if it were Hilary, but it may be. Even if we assume that it is Hilary, all it shows is that Peter had some sort of primacy of honor above that of Paul (that’s not what Galatians teaches, but that’s another story). It doesn’t suggest that Peter had universal jurisdiction, nor that his superiority (of whatever kind) to Paul was passed on to someone else.

IV. Jerome - Bryan Cross provides a single quotation from Jerome .... Jerome explains himself this way ....Jerome views Damasus as leader of the church of Rome, the Roman church, not the leader of the universal church .... Moreover, Jerome acknowledges that pope Liberius likewise fell into heresy, which does not fit the modern day paradigm of Roman primacy.... “The sword of God, which is the living Word of God, strikes through the things which men of their own accord, without the authority and testimonies of Scripture, invent and think up, pretending that it is apostolic tradition.”

V. Macarius of Egypt - (a relatively obscure 4th century “saint”), .... Macarius clearly thinks that Peter is someone important (“in spite of being what he was”), but at the same time he does not paint an unrealistic picture of him.....I should point out that there is some question about the authenticity of these homilies....

VI. Cyril of Jerusalem - Bryan provided the following quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem....Let’s set aside the fact that Cyril is relating to us the fictional account of Peter’s and Paul’s showdown with Simon Magus, the first heretic. What does the text say? It gives Peter and Paul equal billing as “chief rulers of the church,” and it says Peter carries the keys of heaven....Let’s set aside the fact that Cyril is relating to us the fictional account of Peter’s and Paul’s showdown with Simon Magus, the first heretic. What does the text say? It gives Peter and Paul equal billing as “chief rulers of the church,” and it says Peter carries the keys of heaven.

VII. Basil the Great aka Basil of Caesarea - For Basil, Bryan again combined quotations.....This is one example that Basil is giving regarding the fact that a name calls to mind a whole host of different details of a person. [One of these citations was not even Basil, but “pseudo-Basil”] .... Basil of Caesarea denied explicitly the headship of any man over Christ’s Church. Yet, Mr. Cross, apparently wholly unfamiliar with the history of eastern vs. western relations, cites Basil as a proponent of papal primacy that was utterly foreign to Basil’s ecclesiology. Basil did not apply Matthew 16 to the bishop of Rome, and Mr. Cross should be ashamed of his attempt to mislead others.

VIII. Eulogius of Alexandria - Bryan provides the following quotation from the 6th century Alexandrian Eulogius .... This quotation is quite far from contradicting anything that Congar said.

IX. Sergius, Metropolitan of “(A.D. 649 A.D.)”, writing to to Pope Theodore, says -A .D. “is redundant but because the date itself is not the right year” .... [this writer is] not someone I would think of as a church father. He is writing in the middle of the 7th century, and it appears that the only extant version of his writing is something preserved by Romans at Rome.

X. St. Maximus the Confessor “(c. 650)” of Constantinople - Two quotations were provided by Mr. Cross....Tracking this one down was a little harder than some of the others....The quotation is the first half of a selection “From a letter which was written to Rome,” PG 91:137-40. More specifically, these are extracts taken from a letter of Anastasius’s Letter to John the Deacon. John the Deacon (aka Johannes Hymonides) and Anastasius, librarian of the Roman church, are both Roman.

XI. Conclusion - Congar seems to be justified in stating, “Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial.” [This means, when they said something about Peter, they intended it to be describing Peter the man, not any “successor”].

This may seem like somewhat of an overkill in response to Mr. Cross’ string citation of Fathers. Indeed, in the interest of fairness to Mr. Cross, I should point out that after I and Pastor King had posted sections of the above into the comment box, Mr. Cross seemed to retreat from his original position .... Of course, even this limited position seems hard to defend, beyond a few fathers suggesting that Peter himself was the rock or that Peter himself personally held the keys. And, of course, such a view does not amount to papal primacy, and consequently does not contradict Cardinal Congar’s admission that “Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy ....”

I hope the reader will find this exploration of the fathers and their writings (both authentic and spurious) to be edifying.

Note again the shape of the argument: Bryan throws up long lists of patristics quotes; this is offered, without blushing, to be an impressive bit of evidence. And the typical Protestant response is to patiently go back to each and every one of those quotations, to provide more context, and to show that in each case, the original “supporting” quote is shown to be something quite different from what is originally asserted by the Roman Catholic.

[RnMomof7]

Actual title edited to conform to FR posting rules ...actual title ... Ooh,ooh, he said ‘chair’” – “Florilegia” (“assertions of authority”) vs. the Reformation discipline of Textual Criticism

[RnMomof7]

Ping

[impactplayer]

Revelation

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16)

Jesus has been with the disciples for around three years by this point, and there are only about six months left until His crucifixion. He really needs to get them on His plan – but how? He’s not even sure they know who He is, and nothing will ever make sense until this has been established. He’s not sure they are ready, but time has run out. You can almost feel the tension as He asks the question of the ages: “But what about you? Who do you say I am?” It is likely that the disciples have been discussing this among themselves and have reached a conclusion: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Long-time Christians have a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal. “How could they not know this by now?” we ask. But remember, even though the many factions among the Jews disagreed on many points, the one thing they all agreed on was that there was only one God. And they had seen that Jesus prayed to God. So who was this man? He had not told them. But they knew! In spite of everything in their previous understanding, they knew! “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” I would say that Jesus was ecstatic! “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” And it is upon the “rock” that Jesus will build His church, and the gates of Hades (death) will not prevail against it.

But what is this “rock” that Jesus will build upon? Jesus; Peter; the confession of faith; belief in Jesus? There are very good arguments for each of these, but for me, the “rock” upon which the church will be built is none other than “revelation”. This ability for a man to know the will of God through revelation is the foundation of a true existence with God. This is the beginning of the re-establishment of the God-man relationship which existed before the sin of Adam – this is who man was created to be. And the church will be build upon this new beginning, with the keys to bind and loose.

This term, “the keys to bind and loose” was part of the Jewish culture and was used to recognize those who had completed their courses of study in law. On completing the course of Law a Key (as a Diploma) was received by the Jewish student who had passed his examinations for the high position of Doctor of Law. The key handed to the student had the words ‘receive authority to bind and to loose’ inscribed on the key. Having mastered the Law, the Doctor of Law could now say what was lawful and what was unlawful. The scribes in the day of Jesus looked upon Keys as their insignia of their office to be interpreters of the moral law.

But there is more. In the original text the tense used to describe this if “future perfect”. Thus, it is really saying, “Whatever has already been bound in heaven you can now see through revelation and bind in the church, and whatever has already been loosed in heaven you can see through revelation and loose in the church.”

Now that is a church built upon the rock of revelation!

Note: This was also express by Paul in 1 Galatians 11: “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

[Talisker]

This method of argument-by-authority was very common in the early medieval years... This is just how the business was practiced back then.

Back then? LOL, when I had the temerity to post an opinion that when Jesus proclaimed His "greatest commandment" as His "greatest" commandment, He actually meant it was, in fact, the greatest commandment out of all the other commandments, I was shouted down with outrage.

"Back then." :snort: Yeah, because things have really changed. Sure they have.

[hulagirl]

Exactly! And why would we replace the scriptures w/the “authority” of the “early church fathers”? I don’t get it. I’ll go w/Paul and his epistles, and they contradict Catholicism. The post yesterday about that brainy evangelical raised church historian guy converting to Cathoicism because of the “early fathers” contradicting the idea of salvation through faith alone didn’t convince me because I don’t put my trust in those men, I put it in the Bible alone; after that I judge by the scriptures what anyone says, “early church fathers” or whomever!

[impimp]

...but you put your faith in the Catholic Church and its early church fathers to tell you what books should be in the bible?

[RnMomof7]

...but you put your faith in the Catholic Church and its early church fathers to tell you what books should be in the bible?

Actually Rome did not determone the canonical books

[HossB86]

Excellent post — thanks!

Neal

[impimp]

Who did give you the New Testament?

[Daffy]

“I’ll go w/Paul and his epistles, and they contradict Catholicism.”

No they don’t, but you are welcome to believe anything you please.

[Montana_Sam]

Either you believe Jesus appointed Peter as His head of the Church on earth, or you don’t. Either Jesus meant what He said, or nothing He says can be held as Truth.

[Salvation]

I’ll go with Christ’s own direct words.

[RnMomof7]

It was not Rome.. Rome did not even have a canon until Trent

[Elsie]

As Turretin noted in the 17th century, the Roman Catholic method of defending itself is to make a claim of over-arching authority; this claim is asserted and re-asserted, as if the re-assertion carries more weight than the original assertion.

Solomon noted it:

There is nothing new inder the sun.

 

" The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly -

- it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'  

[impimp]

From wiki:
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[6] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[7] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[8] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[9] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[6] or if not the list is at least a sixth-century compilation.[10] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[11] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church.”[12] Thus, from the fifth century onward, the Western Church was unanimous concerning the New Testament canon.[13]

From me:
Most would say that it was in the fourth or fifth century that the Catholic Church came up with the New Testament Canon. You should thank us that we, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave you this.

[BlueDragon]

From you;

Most would say that it was in the fourth or fifth century that the Catholic Church came up with the New Testament Canon.

Even the brief wiki-skim which you brought contains more than strong hint that is incorrect...and that's without or before sorting out the true identity of just who and what this capital "C" Catholic Church is whom you are talking about, and your usage of the phrase, "came up with".

You should thank us that we, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave you this.

We?

What's this irrational "we" "gave you" business? The writings of the NT were much more imposed upon the Church by the Apostolic writers (and those nearest to themselves and the events of that age) than there necessarily have been anything near to a strict reliance upon later "Holy Spirit guidance" needing to have come down from the heavenlies, or else what's the use of capital "T" tradition?

At this page http://www.bible-researcher.com/barker1.html there relying upon Chapter 2 from The New Testament Speaks, by Glenn W. Barker, William L. Lane, and J. Ramsey Michaels (New York: Harper & Row) scroll down towards near the bottom of the page and view the list of estimated dates for the writings of the 27 books of the NT, under heading of "Pertinent Data on the New Testament Books".

Most of those, as soon as received, were taken as the saying goes today, "as the gospel truth", and then widely shared from very early on, although to establish that beyond any doubt, one does need look upon what later data concerning those writings is available.

But more to the point, YOU had as little to do with formation of canon as anyone alive for the last, very nearly to being 19 full centuries. No other 'Catholic" alive today is owed a plug nickel as far as the present existence of the NT canon goes, either. So just who is the "we" again, which you are talking about? I am as much a part of that same "we" as you are, my FRiend.

Athanasius was not of the Church of Rome, (nor dependent upon Rome for his own authority, be that what it may) but was instead of Alexandria. That bishopric was one of those established by the Apostles directly (or so goes Church traditions concerning the matter) and had never from it's inception been "under" any bishop of Rome.

In other words, the Roman Catholic portion of the Universal Church, had less to do with the formation of the canon than many other portions of the Church, leaving no one today owing the Church of Rome, all these centuries later, much of any "thanks" for the Scriptures themselves.

The greater bulk of what we now know of as the New Testament had been widely accepted and recognized, long before Athanasius himself made his own significant theological contributions -- and also had written detailed listing of what was considered canon in his day, and what was not. Do you know that Athanasius rejected the same OT Apocrypha which the Jews had set aside as not Holy Writ? And that so did Jerome, whom translated the Scriptures into Latin? Would you care to see the proof?

Although there is only some scant evidence Jerome did not translate the books of Apocrypha with his own hand directly, there is abundant evidence he wrote that those writings were not properly, indiscriminately equal the remained of OT canon, but were instead, lesser merely ecclesiastical writings -- fit to be read from in Church, but not for establishment of doctrine.

It's not as if 'Rome' had been sending out messengers with lists of "approved" books bearing Roman Church bishop signature, and thus the matter be forever settled due to some 'air of authority' for Rome itself to have held such a thing.

In fact, in one sense, just that there is not something of authoritative edict having emanated from 'Rome' as it were which unilaterally could have settled the matter, that in itself is a form of evidence against papal "system", as that later came into being, claimed by those of Rome alone to been the way Church polity was from the beginning of the Church.

[again] In other words -- "Rome" as it were, tells lies. Until they are caught. Then they change the story to adjust to the more complete information anyone who challenges the claims which they make can establish to the contrary.

When the newly messaged "story" (which still asserts claims for Rome's singular authority) is presented, it still seems to always-always-always include and that any and all owe that one ecclesiastical community everything. What typically happens then, are the goalposts are once again moved, but only as far as they are forced to be. As soon as the blowback pressure against Romsih apologetic subsides (or they encounter the ignorant, and/or the easily swayed or distracted) again those of Rome play for all the marbles, by whichever rhetorical hook and crook, and massaging of the details, and playing upon emotions (and mind) can be gotten away with. Witnessing this unfold on the pages of FR for many years now -- leaves me frequently --- furious.

From one who knows better as for how the formation progressed, more directly (in scholarly manner) than you, or I, F.F. Bruce says;

"At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known originally as 'The Gospel' in the singular, not 'The Gospels' in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four records, distinguished as 'according to Matthew,' 'according to Mark,' and so on." ...

...By the time of Irenaeus, who, though a native of Asia Minor, was bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180, the idea of a fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic in the Church at large that he can refer to it as an established and recognised fact as obvious as the four cardinal points of the compass or the four winds" ...

..."When the four Gospels were gathered together in one volume, it meant the severance of the two parts of Luke's history. When Luke and Acts were thus separated one or two modifications were apparently introduced into the text at the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts. Originally Luke seems to have left all mention of the ascension to his second treatise; now the words 'and was carried up into heaven' were added in Luke xxiv. 51, to round off the narrative, and in consequence 'was taken up' was added in Acts i. 2. Thus the inconsistencies which some have detected between the accounts of the ascension in Luke and Acts are most likely due to these adjustments made when the two books were separated from each other.

Acts, however, naturally shared the authority and prestige of the third Gospel, being the work of the same author, and was apparently received as canonical by all except Marcion and his followers. Indeed, Acts occupied a very important place in the New Testament canon, being the pivotal book of the New Testament, as Harnack called it, since it links the Gospels with the Epistles, and, by its record of the conversion, call, and missionary service of Paul, showed clearly how real an apostolic authority lay behind the Pauline Epistles.

The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos, each letter being distinguished as 'To the Romans,' 'First to the Corinthians,' and so on. Before long, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was bound up with the Pauline writings. Acts, as a matter of convenience, came to be bound up with the 'General Epistles' (those of Peter, James, John and Jude).

The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority.

There are earlier lists than Athanasius. In the instances of far earlier lists, some lacked ~only~ Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, and one or a few catholic epistles, but otherwise -- list or mention all of Paul's Epistles, the Gospels (of course) and the book of Acts. The main core as it were, was widely accepted from near or before the end of the first century, with there being some initial, then again later arising suspicions towards that book known as Revelation, and again for some (but not universally all of the Church, spread out as it was) -- no knowledge of some varying few of the much smaller in size, so-called "catholic epistles".

There is also the matter of spurious, later arising works having been accepted for a time by some, but seemingly never universally -- which perhaps is part of why those writings were eventually set aside as being not fully comparable and equal to the rest (not actually Apostolic source) thus not canonical, even though a few of those writings were for a time, to greater and lesser extent utilized.

I will submit that (in my own opinion) the Holy Spirit was likely to have been strongly enough present with those whom either -- never recognized writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas as fully 'canonical' (conceptually speaking), or else later had it dawn upon them that those writings were not of the same nature as is the rest of that which did eventually become known as New Testament, (following Paul's own usage of that term) although any of us today, must for the most part need to guess as for how much, and for whom the Spirit did the guiding, more so than fullest establishment of what had come from Apostolic source (and what had not) needed to have relied upon traditions (as best as those could be discerned) by way of comparing notes as it were, among those of the Church, in order to determine what was handed down had come from widely verified, truly Apostolic source, and what had not.

I ask you -- is there any truly Apostolic writing, attributed to the very same Apostles and their most immediate contemporaries (such as Luke) which was rejected as "not Scripture"?

Since there is not, then that is what I meant, as for what was eventually settled upon but only that which ---as I previously said --- had indeed been imposed upon the Church by the Apostles. That much is inescapable, despite all the small troubles experienced along the way, like Marcion wanting to too severely restrict what had come from Apostolic source, and the Shepherd and the Didache (and some other lesser writings) having been "read in church" and thus recognized by *some* as valid enough and useful, but generally not equal to more direct Apostolic.

Those of Rome today owe these same writers every bit as much as anyone else. Yet ultimately we all owe God for having utilized those men as His own instruments, though if I could in some way directly encounter those whom did labor in the word (and still do to this day, in a manner recognizable to myself as in some way worthy) I will thank those persons, and you can join with myself in doing so, or not. That last part is up to you to determine for yourself.

For those of the RCC whom today can read the greater portions of what is referred to as the "Early Church Fathers" more entirely in context -- one can thank a group of (chiefly) Protestants.

Go to New Advent, on most any page where there are "Ante Nicene, and Post Nicene Fathers" quoted, and the source for where those were obtained, in English, leads to the assemblage of translations put together by Philip Schaff, A.C. Coxe and other men who's names I cannot at the moment recall.

Check who the translators were --- and you will find a small collection of Protestant scholars of the latter 19th century.

As for Scripture itself;
If not for the Protestant Reformation, English language bibles would most likely still remain very difficult to come by, if available at all.

The first English translations, when those found by Roman Catholic authorities, were most often burned, other than primitive, partial portions of Scripture, which prior to Wycliffe & Tyndale, was that which had been translated by priests for their own uses, and what small portions could be obtained in Brevaries and Psalters. There were not English translation available, particularly fully extant English translation of the bible which one could personally possess.

If you desire thanks be offered for yourself being able to read the Scriptures in English, then you should thank the Reformers who risked their own lives to open the Scriptures up to English language recipients ...and in the instance of Tyndale, gave his own life, for his translation work was very much part of why he was burned at the stake (the RCC of his day HATED it, and hated Tyndale).

That said -- would it make any sense for you to thank some random Protestant for what Wycliffe and Tyndale helped bring into the world?

It would not seem necessary, to me.

But I'm supposed to thank a bunch of Roman Catholics alive today for Scripture -- which THAT church for a period of many hundreds of years, actively suppressed possession of Scripture in "vulgar tongue", or else much discouraged it?

No sir, I will offer my thanks to those of the earliest centuries most foremost, in times long before any pope of Rome began to get away with throwing his own weight around.

To those whom would insist (if they pushed it far enough) that I myself and others submit in some manner to themselves over this --- I'd be more than willing to throw them around, like up against the wall, or overboard, and they could bloody well swim for it.

Understand, amigo?