Posted on 08/20/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Augustine? Surely you gest!
great.
This statement is false. The Ecumenical Council of Florence promulgated exactly the same canon list 100 years before Trent. They didn't attach an anathema to it as Trent did, but it was most certainly a formal expression of Church teaching.
Local councils promulgated the same, or almost the same canon 1000 years before Florence.
For the Orthodox, the issue of catholicity and apostolicity is at least as tied to the issue of whether or not the body confessed the Orthodox Faith as with the proper succession of bishops in right line from the Holy Apostles.
The Latin analysis of the defect in Anglican orders has no currency with the Orthodox—witness the union talks between St. Tikhon and Bp. Grafton of Fond du Lac in the early 20th century—and indeed there are many classical Anglicans (Thomas Ken, the Caroline Divines, and curiously, the Wesleys, come to mind) who evince a phronema closer to Orthodoxy than is found elsewhere in the West since the Latin schism.
But this is not to say that the Orthodox can regard Anglicanism as either apostolic or catholic, since has always been hard to tell whether Anglicans actually confess a faith beyond some minimal truths that broad-church latitudinarians (very like liberal protestant of all stripes), low-church evanglicals, and high-churchmen (whether of the Anglo-Catholic stripe or not) all agree on—and even harder since the latidudinarian wing had drifted into neo-pagan apostacy. Insisting on remaining in the communion of those who do not confess the Apostolic Faith is not a mark of apostolicity, even with a valid succession of consecrations, bishop-to-bishop back to the Apostles.
That being said, one Orthodox monk for whom I have great respect and affection has expressed the view that a particular minority among the Continuing Anglicans, the one body which has dropped the filioque to return to the Creed as confessed by the Orthodox, is the only Western confession with which it is worthwhile for the Orthodox to have an ‘ecumenical dialog’. (In charity to my separated Latin bretheren, I should point out that this view was expressed before the enthronement of Pope Benedict XVI.)
The ‘Deutrocanonicals’ were recognized by Carthage in the African Code of 419, which was given ecumenical force by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (the disciplinary sessions of which are called the ‘Quinsext’ or ‘Trullan’ Synod by Western commentators, though its canons were recognized as beloning to the Sixth Ecumencical Council by various Popes of Rome before the Latin schism). They have always been part of Christian Scripture from the fixing of the Canon.
The notion that Trent was the first ‘formal’ recognition is false protestant propaganda that is plainly disproved by the fact that the Orthodox, who regard Trent as an heretical conventicle held by the Latins, regard the ‘deuterocanonicals’ as part of canonical Scripture.
In regards to the 2ndary canon books (the meaning of deutero) what is formal recognition, or not, like oral tradition, always seem to me to be a bit squirrelly, emphasized and even revised according to the history accepted at the time. Besides that, as the life of Athanasius proved, Councils do, and have erred.
I for one believe in the official Anglican description of scripture from the 39 Articles:
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
If that, or Cranmer himself, is not “Anglican” enough for some, oh well.
Thank you for posting that. It is very interesting stuff.
Freegards
Was this ever in question?
I find generalizations detract from real discourse.
Thank you Reggie, though I cannot claim credit for wisdom. The wise things are from the Holy Spirit... the foolishness is fully mine.
I pulled many chains myself, until one day I met the person who stands at the end of the chain. An honest struggle with God can be beneficial.... those we wrestle with, we have to draw very near to.
You wrote:
“‘Those groups’ is rather broad, could you refer to a specific case and we could discuss that one first?”
I probably could if I knew what your were quoting and thought it was worthwhile to look. At this point, I don’t see either one of those things. If you’re going to quote someone, posting more than two words would help.
“I find generalizations detract from real discourse.”
I have always found posting two words of someone’s comments and demanding further explication without having been provided the context to detract from real discourse. Generalizations, on the other hand, are usually easily dealt with.
Thought you might find this thread of interest.
It is interesting, although I must say that I find the conflicting viewpoints very conflicting!
Vladimir wrote;
(Dragoon wrote earlier)"Those groups’ is rather broad, could you refer to a specific case and we could discuss that one first?”
I probably could if I knew what your were quoting and thought it was worthwhile to look. At this point, I don’t see either one of those things. If you’re going to quote someone, posting more than two words would help.
(Dragoon wrote earlier)“I find generalizations detract from real discourse.”
I have always found posting two words of someone’s comments and demanding further explication without having been provided the context to detract from real discourse. Generalizations, on the other hand, are usually easily dealt with.
Here is your post that I was responding to;
Vladimir wrote;
So where does that leave all of those self-admitted Protestant groups that cut the Deuterocanonicals from their new Bibles?
Might I suggest you apply your comments to your own posting. I am merely asking you to clarify your own question and explain which 'Protestant groups' and which 'new Bibles' you are referring to.
You're absolutely correct that generalizations are easy to respond to. It's also easy to unjustly slander and accuse using generalities, because we can lump disparate groups together as we choose. Truth though is better served by speaking clearly and clarifying exactly who and what we mean.
Both context and full earlier texts are available through use of the "To xx" link below the text, just in case you were unaware of this. As you yourself did not post my full previous posting, I find it strange that you place a load on others which you do not place on yourself.
I guess in part it depends on what you think about the nature of God. If you believe in a God who took on human nature in the form of Christ, and spoke through Christ to all men, then would you not look to those Apostles and teachers whom Christ had sent forth?
It goes without saying that these Apostles who had walked beside Christ were all alive when they wrote the letters of the NT, and so would have been available as living sources to Christ’s words and teachings. Their letters (which were later gathered as the NT) would then have been copied and available after they each were killed for their faith.
It must have been a humbling and profoundly moving experience to meet and talk to someone who had lived and walked with Christ. It must also have been comforting to know that others who had witnessed and could corroborate their statements were still alive at that time.
btt
You wrote:
“Sorry Vladimir, I find your whole tone here rather confusing.”
That’s okay because I’m not worried if you do.
“Might I suggest you apply your comments to your own posting. I am merely asking you to clarify your own question and explain which ‘Protestant groups’ and which ‘new Bibles’ you are referring to.”
Nah, not worth my time. If you do not know enough about this subject I can recommend a book to you. Read Gary Michuta’s book. I think the title is Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. http://www.handsonapologetics.com/WCBB_BLURB%20PAGE.htm
“You’re absolutely correct that generalizations are easy to respond to. It’s also easy to unjustly slander and accuse using generalities, because we can lump disparate groups together as we choose.”
Thankfully, I didn’t do that.
“Truth though is better served by speaking clearly and clarifying exactly who and what we mean.”
To those who are familiar with the topic my statements were both clear and distinct. Again, if you are unschooled on this topic, perhaps it is time you did some study?
“Both context and full earlier texts are available through use of the “To xx” link below the text, just in case you were unaware of this. As you yourself did not post my full previous posting, I find it strange that you place a load on others which you do not place on yourself.”
Clearly you need to study. If you want to consider that a “load” then that is your choice. In any case you need to start with the basics - as your requests to me make clear. What you find strange is of no concern to me. I have no reason to believe your conclusion as to what is strange is worthy of note by me.
And their words were passed down through apostolic succession as well as their written words.
As I am not worthy of note to you, I will leave you to your own wisdom.
May the God of Abraham and Isaac bless you.
How exactly are words passed on through ‘Apostolic succession’? Do the Apostles share with their chosen ‘successor’ secret knowledge/gnosis that is not available to other believers? Did Christ command his disciples to share secret knowledge with only a few, or did he instruct them to 'preach the good news to all creation' (Mark 16:15) and to 'make disciples of all nations' (Mt 28:19)
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.