Posted on 03/12/2015 9:30:16 PM PDT by Steelfish
Increasing Number of Lutherans Are Coming Into The Catholic Church
BY Tim Drake
One of the most under-reported religious stories of the past decade has been the movement of Lutherans across the Tiber. What first began with prominent Lutherans, such as Richard John Neuhaus (1990) and Robert Wilken (1994), coming into the Catholic Church, has become more of a landslide that could culminate in a larger body of Lutherans coming into the collectively. In 2000, former Canadian Lutheran Bishop Joseph Jacobson came into the Church.
“No other Church really can duplicate what Jesus gave,” Jacobson told the Western Catholic Reporter in 2006. [How could it? Had Jesus desired that there could be more than one Church, He would have said that or He would have founded more than one.] In 2003, Leonard Klein, a prominent Lutheran and the former editor of Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter came into the Church.
Today, both Jacobson and Klein are Catholic priests. Over the past several years, an increasing number of Lutheran theologians have joined the Church’s ranks, some of whom now teach at Catholic colleges and universities. They include, but are not limited to: Paul Quist (2005), Richard Ballard (2006), Paul Abbe (2006), Thomas McMichael, Mickey Mattox, David Fagerberg, Bruce Marshall, Reinhard Hutter, Philip Max Johnson, and most recently, Dr. Michael Root (2010).
“The Lutheran church has been my intellectual and spiritual home for forty years,” wrote Dr. Root. “But we are not masters of our convictions. A risk of ecumenical study is that one will come to find another tradition compelling in a way that leads to a deep change in mind and heart. Over the last year or so, it has become clear to me, not without struggle, that I have become a Catholic in my mind and heart in ways that no longer permit me to present myself as a Lutheran theologian with honesty and integrity.
This move is less a matter of decision than of discernment.” [I was nothing like a theologian at the time, but what he describes I could have written about my own conversion and entrance into the Catholic Church.] It’s been said that “no one converts alone,” suggesting that oftentimes the effect of one conversion helps to move another along a similar path. [Take a look at Joseph Pearce’e Literary Converts.]
That’s exemplified through Paul Quist’s story. He describes attending the Lutheran “A Call to Faithfulness” conference at St. Olaf College in June, 1990. There, he listened to, and met, Richard John Neuhaus, who would announce his own conversion just months later. “What some Lutherans were realizing was that, without the moorings of the Church’s Magisterium, Lutheranism would ineluctably drift from it’s confessional and biblical source,” wrote Quist.
Many of the converts have come from The Society of the Holy Trinity, a pan-Lutheran ministerium organized in 1997 to work for the confessional and spiritual renewal of Lutheran churches. Now, it appears that a larger Lutheran body will be joining the Church. Father Christopher Phillips, writing at the Anglo-Catholic blog, reports that the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) clergy and parishes will be entering into the U.S. ordinariate being created for those Anglicans desiring to enter the Church.
According to the blog, the ALCC sent a letter to Walter Cardinal Kasper, on May 13, 2009, stating that it “desires to undo the mistakes of Father Martin Luther, and return to the One, Holy, and True Catholic Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Blessed Saint Peter.” That letter was sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Surprisingly, in October 2010, the ALCC received a letter from the secretary of the CDF, informing them that Archbishop Donald Wuerl had been appointed as an episcopal delegate to assist with the implementation of Angelicanorum coetibus. The ALCC responded that they would like to be included as part of the reunification.
Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
Alinsky tactics indeed! If you keep repeating that Luther threw books of scripture into the garbage - even though you have been shown countless times he did no such thing - do you think it will become true or people who DO know better will change their minds? Why post transparent falsehoods?
Stop right there. “God’s word”
This is where Petrine authority comes in. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry does not get to offer “his”’/”her” authoritative interpretation of God’s “Word” This is the heresy of the Reformation, where we have everyone and their grandmother thinking they can crack open the pages of the Bible and offer us “their” interpretation of “God’s “word.” God’s “word” is also His unwritten words and actions.
Many of these eminent theologians are saints of the Church beginning with early Church fathers who assembled the “books” in the Bible under Petrine authority.
He used the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees as his excuse and anyone who accepts the Luther Subset of the Bible rather than the whole thing blasphemes the Holy Spirit because by accepting that subset they assert that the anti-Christ Pharisees and Luther are perfect while the Holy Spirit is not because the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error.
Anyone who gets a copy of the Luther Bible, read the prefaces to the Appendices he put those books in, and still claims Luther who clearly stated those books were not the inspired Word of God wasn't throwing them in the garbage is an idiot, a liar, or an anti-Catholic troll who probably isn't even Christian.
Tell the Howells and Gilligan Hi.
Therefore when someone asserts that the Holy Spirit is inept and imperfect then pretends they follow Christ who they have by definition proclaimed as being imperfect since they state that the Holy Spirit is imperfect, they're very clearly under the strong delusion of Self and Self Alone since they claim the right to judge God.
That's right, GOD'S word - Sacred Scripture. His revelation written down as He has done since Moses. God knows all too well the propensity of men to corrupt His truth and it's why Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, they were written, copied, distributed and preserved. It is folly to imagine unwritten "traditions" are in any way comparable to Divine inspiration. Within a few decades after Christ ascended, His teachings and the continued revelation was being written down so that there would be a record to be used as both resource and rule of the faith. John's Revelation was the last of the New Testament books to be written.
There are first and second century writings of Christian leaders that teach and list the writings - as well as acknowledging their Divine origin - that were received by Christ's own that make up the NT and if all the manuscript copies of those books were destroyed, almost the entire NT could be reconstructed using their writings. The later councils did nothing more than confirm what was already believed by the church at large. The church was not dependent upon the decision of a council for the contents of the NT.
The ONLY "Petrine" authority was the same Apostolic authority Jesus gave to the other eleven and it was NOT something that could be handed down from an Apostle to his "successor" - ONLY Jesus anointed His Apostles. There was a handing down of the gospel truth and that was what determined if a man was speaking as from the Lord. Peter called Paul's epistles "Scripture", he didn't need to wait for a council to decide it for him three hundred years after he was martyred. Obedience was expected and those who would not were excluded from the fellowship.
So, we are supposed to use the "Rashputin" dictionary to define what "throwing into the garbage" means? Were those books translated and included in Luther's German Bible, yes or no? Did Jerome not say the SAME things about those seven books and were there other early church fathers that agreed, yes or no?
It seems like the real idiots, liars, or an anti-anyone-who-isn't-a-Catholic trolls probably aren't even Christians, they sure aren't HONEST.
". . . was NOT something that could be handed down from an Apostle to his "successor . . ."
No Seat of Moses in spite of what Jesus Christ Himself said, therefore no Seat of Peter.
Gotcha, another instance of Jesus Christ being in error.
The infallibility given to the early Church Fathers in sorting out what are the true words of God is the highest form of authority. This lasted for nearly 300 years over different popes when the canonical texts were approved in AD 382. That Petrine authority did not suddenly evaporate with the Reformation.
This is precisely why droves of pre-eminent Lutheran theologians have decamped and converted to Catholicism. This is the teaching of over 2000 years, the teaching accepted by the saints and martyrs of the Church and the brilliant minds of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman (a convert) and Benedict (called the “theological Einstein of our times) and one that is not open to confusing and contradictory interpretations from every branch and sub-brach of Protestantism.
This is why the brilliant essayist Hillaire Belloc wrote in his book “Heresies” (a copy of which I have with me), wrote that unlike other heresies, Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.” Fortunately, leading Lutheran and Episcopalian theologians who have spent a lifetime of scholarship have realized the central errors of the Reformation and the logical nonsense it leads to. You have a First Baptist, First Presbyterian, First Emmanuel and every other kind of first class nonsense.
By the by, when's the last time one of your Popes healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke in a language he didn't first learn or perform other miracles (Mark 16:20; Acts 2:43; 1 Cor. 12:8-11)? Which ones saw the Lord Jesus Christ and were able to testify of him and of his resurrection from their personal knowledge (John 15:27; Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor. 9:1; Acts 22:14-15)? Like I said, the office of Apostle was NOT something that could be handed down. That's just another RC myth (aka...lie).
yeah, yeah...your standard, stock answer, unassisted by ANYTHING other than you said so because you were told so and you believe what you are told. I’m not at all impressed by “pre-eminent” theologians who for God only knows what reason decided to “Pope”. The truth has NEVER changed. “Your” church has, many times.
Oh yeah, “impressed” by “your” interpretation of scripture the very nonsense that leads to every person understanding the “Word” of God accordingly to his/her own lights. Tell that to the followers of David Koresh and Jim Jones, and the dumb idiots who flock to hear Rick Warren Joel Osteen, Rev. Wright, Billy Graham, Benny Hinns, and the Moonies. Pure shallow nonsense.
It's kind of hilarious that having a high standard for what is accepted as from God is called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" when I'm not the one attributing spurious HUMAN writings as coming from Him! I will stand before my Lord and Savior clothed in the righteousness of Christ having my robe washed in the precious blood of the Lamb of God and not based upon my works of righteousness. He has already prepared a place for me in His father's house.
Obviously, some people can’t handle the Truth that refusing to accept the entire Bible is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and thereby denying the deity of Christ.
The same way I describe the Izlamaniac religion and the Catholic religion...You're all in the same camp...
mainline denominations like Lutherans and Episcopalians who now ordain gay married lesbians and homosexual bishops,
I'm going to make a wild guess and guess that the Catholic religion has far, far, more homosexual bishops than the mainline Protestant churches...It's like they say, don't worry about what they tell you, watch the hands...
the vapid nonsense of the Billy Grahams;
Billy Graham has led scores of thousands to Jesus Christ...And you call it vapid nonsense...You'll have a chance to tell that to Jesus...
Are we to take “your” and someone else’s interpretation by folks who crack open the pages of the Bible and offer us their interpretations?
We don't crack open the bible to offer interpretations...We crack open the bible because the bible tells us to...To present those words to the people who will see...We crack it open to see if the Billy Graham's and the Moonies and the Catholics and the Izlamnuts are telling us the truth...
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
From a Bible whose books did not fall from the skies and self-assemble themselves but were infallibly assembled by the Catholic Church after sorting through hundreds of writings and cross-checking their veracity with the received tradition and firmly acknowledging these books to be the written “Word of God” and have interpreted this written word infallibly 2000 years as the ONE Church speaking the ONE truth?
What a crock...The bible condemns every one of your Catholic traditions...
The books of the bible DID fall from the sky, in a sense, in the 1st Century...Although God didn't fall, he came from the skies (heaven) and picked out certain men to write his words in books to be copied and preached to the entire world, hundreds of years before your religion even had a pope and before the muzlims had a prophet...
Having been a student of theology myself, I’d rather follow the faith of the early Church fathers, and the the irrefutable doctrine of Petrine authority and the ONE Church Christ founded for all time.
Not me...I'll follow Jesus...
Student of theology??? Irrefutable Petrine doctrine??? That false doctrine gets refuted (with the scriptures) every time it's brought to FR...
So it's nice that you apparently spent years studying your religion's version of its history and human philosophy but the important question is: DID YOU STUDY THE BIBLE???
There weren't any individual popes in the first 3 Centuries...
+ + +
OK, I read this, and the author begins with this:
And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.””This begs the question, Which canon? Since the majority of OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint, the word "Scriptures" in the NT most likely refers to the Septuagint.
The author simply ignores the fact that different groups of Jews used different collections of Scripture. The issue is very complex.
The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles' hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data.See citations from the Church Fathers and Councils here.All the books of the Hebrew Old Testament are cited in the New except those which have been aptly called the Antilegomena of the Old Testament, viz., Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; moreover Esdras and Nehemias are not employed. The admitted absence of any explicit citation of the deutero writings does not therefore prove that they were regarded as inferior to the above-mentioned works in the eyes of New Testament personages and authors. The deutero literature was in general unsuited to their purposes, and some consideration should be given to the fact that even at its Alexandrian home it was not quoted by Jewish writers, as we saw in the case of Philo. The negative argument drawn from the non-citation of the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament is especially minimized by the indirect use made of them by the same Testament. This takes the form of allusions and reminiscences, and shows unquestionably that the Apostles and Evangelists were acquainted with the Alexandrian increment, regarded its books as at least respectable sources, and wrote more or less under its influence. A comparison of Hebrews, xi and II Machabees, vi and vii reveals unmistakable references in the former to the heroism of the martyrs glorified in the latter. There are close affinities of thought, and in some cases also of language, between 1 Peter 1:6-7, and Wisdom 3:5-6; Hebrews 1:3, and Wisdom 7:26-27; 1 Corinthians 10:9-10, and Judith 8:24-25; 1 Corinthians 6:13, and Ecclesiasticus 36:20.
Yet the force of the direct and indirect employment of Old Testament writings by the New is slightly impaired by the disconcerting truth that at least one of the New Testament authors, St. Jude, quotes explicitly from the "Book of Henoch", long universally recognized as apocryphal, see verse 14, while in verse 9 he borrows from another apocryphal narrative, the "Assumption of Moses". The New Testament quotations from the Old are in general characterized by a freedom and elasticity regarding manner and source which further tend to diminish their weight as proofs of canonicity. But so far as concerns the great majority of the Palestinian Hagiographa--a fortiori, the Pentateuch and Prophets--whatever want of conclusiveness there may be in the New Testament, evidence of their canonical standing is abundantly supplemented from Jewish sources alone, in the series of witnesses beginning with the Mishnah and running back through Josephus and Philo to the translation of the above books for the Hellenist Greeks. But for the deuterocanonical literature, only the last testimony speaks as a Jewish confirmation. However, there are signs that the Greek version was not deemed by its readers as a closed Bible of definite sacredness in all its parts, but that its somewhat variable contents shaded off in the eyes of the Hellenists from the eminently sacred Law down to works of questionable divinity, such as III Machabees.
This factor should be considered in weighing a certain argument. A large number of Catholic authorities see a canonization of the deuteros in a supposed wholesale adoption and approval, by the Apostles, of the Greek, and therefore larger, Old Testament. The argument is not without a certain force; the New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the Septuagint; out of the 350 texts from the Old Testament, 300 favour the language of the Greek version rather than that of the Hebrew. But there are considerations which bid us hesitate to admit an Apostolic adoption of the Septuagint en bloc. As remarked above, there are cogent reasons for believing that it was not a fixed quantity at the time. The existing oldest representative manuscripts are not entirely identical in the books they contain. Moreover, it should be remembered that at the beginning of our era, and for some time later, complete sets of any such voluminous collection as the Septuagint in manuscript would be extremely rare; the version must have been current in separate books or groups of books, a condition favourable to a certain variability of compass. So neither a fluctuating Septuagint nor an inexplicit New Testament conveys to us the exact extension of the pre-Christian Bible transmitted by the Apostles to the Primitive Church. It is more tenable to conclude to a selective process under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and a process completed so late in Apostolic times that the New Testament fails to reflect its mature result regarding either the number or note of sanctity of the extra-Palestinian books admitted. To historically learn the Apostolic Canon of the Old Testament we must interrogate less sacred but later documents, expressing more explicitly the belief of the first ages of Christianity.
+ + +
The author has a similar view of the New Testament, that all of its books were immediately recognized as canonical, and never in dispute. This only applies to the Gospels, and most of the Pauline Epistles.
The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
The witness of the New Testament to itself: The first collections
Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: 2 Peter 3:15-16 supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration. Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the New Testament, which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul--the Evangelium and the Apostolicum...
The formation of the Tetramorph, or Fourfold Gospel
Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. Proofs might be multiplied that our canonical Gospels were then universally recognized in the Church, to the exclusion of any pretended Evangels. The magisterial statement of Irenæus may be corroborated by the very ancient catalogue known as the Muratorian Canon, and St. Hippolytus, representing Roman tradition; by Tertullian in Africa, by Clement in Alexandria; the works of the Gnostic Valentinus, and the Syrian Tatian's Diatessaron, a blending together of the Evangelists' writings, presuppose the authority enjoyed by the fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the second century. To this period or a little earlier belongs the pseduo-Clementine epistle in which we find, for the first time after 2 Peter 3:16, the word Scripture applied to a New Testament book. But it is needless in the present article to array the full force of these and other witnesses, since even rationalistic scholars like Harnack admit the canonicity of the quadriform Gospel between the years 140-175.
But against Harnack we are able to trace the Tetramorph as a sacred collection back to a more remote period. The apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, dating from about 150, is based on our canonical Evangelists. So with the very ancient Gospel of the Hebrews and Egyptians (see APOCRYPHA). St. Justin Martyr (130-63) in his Apology refers to certain "memoirs of the Apostles, which are called gospels", and which "are read in Christian assemblies together with the writings of the Prophets". The identity of these "memoirs" with our Gospels is established by the certain traces of three, if not all, of them scattered through St. Justin's works; it was not yet the age of explicit quotations. Marcion, the heretic refuted by Justin in a lost polemic, as we know from Tertullian, instituted a criticism of Gospels bearing the names of the Apostles and disciples of the Apostles, and a little earlier (c. 120) Basilides, the Alexandrian leader of a Gnostic sect, wrote a commentary on "the Gospel" which is known by the allusions to it in the Fathers to have comprised the writings of the Four Evangelists.
In our backward search we have come to the sub-Apostolic age, and its important witnesses are divided into Asian, Alexandrian, and Roman:
•St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and St. Polycarp, of Smyrna, had been disciples of Apostles; they wrote their epistles in the first decade of the second century (100-110). They employ Matthew, Luke, and John. In St. Ignatius we find the first instance of the consecrated term "it is written" applied to a Gospel (Ad Philad., viii, 2). Both these Fathers show not only a personal acquaintance with "the Gospel" and the thirteen Pauline Epistles, but they suppose that their readers are so familiar with them that it would be superfluous to name them. Papias, Bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis, according to Irenæus a disciple of St. John, wrote about A.D. 125. Describing the origin of St. Mark's Gospel, he speaks of Hebrew (Aramaic) Logia, or Sayings of Christ, composed by St. Matthew, which there is reason to believe formed the basis of the canonical Gospel of that name, though the greater part of Catholic writers identify them with the Gospel. As we have only a few fragments of Papias, preserved by Eusebius, it cannot be alleged that he is silent about other parts of the New Testament.
•The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, of uncertain origin, but of highest antiquity, cites a passage from the First Gospel under the formula "it is written". The Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles, an uncanonical work dating from c. 110, implies that "the Gospel" was already a well-known and definite collection.
•St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, and disciple of St. Paul, addressed his Letter to the Corinthian Church c. A.D. 97, and, although it cites no Evangelist explicitly, this epistle contains combinations of texts taken from the three synoptic Gospels, especially from St. Matthew. That Clement does not allude to the Fourth Gospel is quite natural, as it was not composed till about that time.
Thus the patristic testimonies have brought us step by step to a Divine inviolable fourfold Gospel existing in the closing years of the Apostolic Era. Just how the Tetramorph was welded into unity and given to the Church, is a matter of conjecture. But, as Zahn observes, there is good reason to believe that the tradition handed down by Papias, of the approval of St. Mark's Gospel by St. John the Evangelist, reveals that either the latter himself of a college of his disciples added the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics, and made the group into the compact and unalterable "Gospel", the one in four, whose existence and authority left their clear impress upon all subsequent ecclesiastical literature, and find their conscious formulation in the language of Irenæus.
The Pauline epistles
Parallel to the chain of evidence we have traced for the canonical standing of the Gospels extends one for the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, forming the other half of the irreducible kernel of the complete New Testament canon. All the authorities cited for the Gospel Canon show acquaintance with, and recognize, the sacred quality of these letters. St. Irenæus, as acknowledged by the Harnackian critics, employs all the Pauline writings, except the short Philemon, as sacred and canonical. The Muratorian Canon, contemporary with Irenæus, gives the complete list of the thirteen, which, it should be remembered, does not include Hebrews. The heretical Basilides and his disciples quote from this Pauline group in general. The copious extracts from Marcion's works scattered through Irenæus and Tertullian show that he was acquainted with the thirteen as in ecclesiastical use, and selected his Apostolikon of six from them. The testimony of Polycarp and Ignatius is again capital in this case. Eight of St. Paul's writings are cited by Polycarp; St. Ignatius of Antioch ranked the Apostles above the Prophets, and must therefore have allowed the written compositions of the former at least an equal rank with those of the latter ("Ad Philadelphios", v). St. Clement of Rome refers to Corinthians as at the head "of the Evangel"; the Muratorian Canon gives the same honour to I Corinthians, so that we may rightfully draw the inference, with Dr. Zahn, that as early as Clement's day St. Paul's Epistles had been collected and formed into a group with a fixed order. Zahn has pointed out confirmatory signs of this in the manner in which Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp employ these Epistles. The tendency of the evidence is to establish the hypothesis that the important Church of Corinth was the first to form a complete collection of St. Paul's writings.
The remaining books
In this formative period the Epistle to the Hebrews did not obtain a firm footing in the Canon of the Universal Church. At Rome it was not yet recognized as canonical, as shown by the Muratorian catalogue of Roman origin; Irenæus probably cites it, but makes no reference to a Pauline origin. Yet it was known at Rome as early as St. Clement, as the latter's epistle attests. The Alexandrian Church admitted it as the work of St. Paul, and canonical. The Montanists favoured it, and the aptness with which vi, 4-8, lent itself to the Montanist and Novatianist rigour was doubtless one reason why it was suspect in the West. Also during this period the excess over the minimal Canon composed of the Gospels and thirteen epistles varied. The seven "Catholic" Epistles (James, Jude, I and II Peter, and the three of John) had not yet been brought into a special group, and, with the possible exception of the three of St. John, remained isolated units, depending for their canonical strength on variable circumstances. But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament. However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse.
The idea of a New Testament
The question of the principle that dominated the practical canonization of the New Testament Scriptures has already been discussed under (b). The faithful must have had from the beginning some realization that in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists they had acquired a new body of Divine Scriptures, a New written Testament destined to stand side by side with the Old. That the Gospel and Epistles were the written Word of God, was fully realized as soon as the fixed collections were formed; but to seize the relation of this new treasure to the old was possible only when the faithful acquired a better knowledge of the faith....
The period of discussion (A.D. 220-367)
Origen and his school
Origen's travels gave him exception opportunities to know the traditions of widely separated portions of the Church and made him very conversant with the discrepant attitudes toward certain parts of the New Testament. He divided books with Biblical claims into three classes:
•those universally received;
•those whose Apostolicity was questions;
•apocryphal works.In the first class, the Homologoumena, stood the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews. Personally, Origen accepted all of these as Divinely inspired, though viewing contrary opinions with toleration. Origen's authority seems to have given to Hebrews and the disputed Catholic Epistles a firm place in the Alexandrian Canon, their tenure there having been previously insecure, judging from the exegetical work of Clement, and the list in the Codex Claromontanus, which is assigned by competent scholars to an early Alexandrian origin.
Eusebius
Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, was one of Origen's most eminent disciples, a man of wide erudition. In imitation of his master he divided religious literature into three classes:
•Homologoumena, or compositions universally received as sacred, the Four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, Acts, I Peter, I John, and Apocalypse. There is some inconsistency in his classification; for instance, though ranking Hebrews with the books of universal reception, he elsewhere admits it is disputed.
•The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the Antilegomena of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.
•All the rest are spurious (notha).
The period of fixation (A.D. 367-405)...
Read more: The Canon of the New Testament
Let me remind you, the Septuagint was a GREEK translation of the HEBREW books that made up the Old Testament scriptures. It was not, and never was meant to be, an official canon. The fact remains that we do not know for sure which books of the group called Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha were even IN the Septuagint from the start and which books got added at a later time. Simply having a book appear in the Septuagint was NO proof of its canonicity nor Divine inspiration.
The author simply ignores the fact that different groups of Jews used different collections of Scripture. The issue is very complex.
Negative, the author doesn't ignore that at all. Your author, on the other hand, seems to be convinced that just because a book was part of the group of books in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) it meant they were automatically considered as God-breathed Scripture. He seems to ignore completely that there were fifteen extra books included in the LXX out of which the Roman Catholic church selected only seven and "officially" declared their canon closed at Trent in the sixteenth century.
Seeing as the first Christians were mostly converted Jews, it was not out of the ordinary that they would have still used the Hebrew language Scriptures - especially at the temple in Jerusalem and surrounding synagogues. The Greek-speaking Gentiles would have utilized the Septuagint more than the Jews, especially devout Jews who would have been raised on the Hebrew Scriptures.
We have multiple sources outside of Christianity - as well as within - that attest to the recognition of the exact books that belonged to the group we call the Old Testament which has not changed in well over two thousand years. What we are really disagreeing about is NOT the 39 books of the OT but the disputed seven. Some reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible can be seen HERE:
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.
2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Rejection by the Jewish Community
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2
4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.
Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
False Teachings
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)
•The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
•Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
•Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
Not Prophetic
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
Now, some FRoman Catholics make an issue out of non-Catholics accepting what they call a "Christ-rejecting, Pharisaical canon of Scripture", but we should remember that Paul even confirmed that unto the Jews were given the "Oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2). Why on earth would anyone imagine the Jewish nation would have rejected legitimate and God-given revelation? "But they rejected the New Testament!", some might assert. Yes, but it was because they corporately (not individually) rejected Jesus as their Messiah - as was prophesied. However, the Old Testament Scriptures were already established centuries before Jesus came to earth so it is ludicrous to state that was why they rejected the Apocrypha as scripture. Neither Jesus nor any Apostle ever cited those books either as authoritative or Divinely given - in fact, they don't cite them at all. There WAS no Apostolic sanction, nor should there have been since these books were not from God - and they certainly never claim to be.
I sure would hope that anyone considering converting to the Roman Catholic church would not have the Bible canon issue be a reason.
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.