Ahhh, the royal "we". Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I don't normally bother responding, but sometimes it's fun to keep trolls entertained! Your post displays trolling at its lowest and may only qualify as gutterballs, instead!
Posted on 06/04/2014 10:18:03 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Uh, every fundamentalist protestant group I know of condemns premarital sex. Perhaps you are thinking of the Catholic groups when you ask your questions?
“While this may not (technically) be a dogmatic definition, it eliminates any ambiguity about whether or not the Deuterocanon is canonical.”
No, it was not “dogma” - a word that exists for a reason. And second, the Council of Trent did not try to decide if the Apocrypha - as it was known then - was acceptable for teaching doctrine.
“...after describing the vote on Feb 15th, Jedin goes back to summarize the discussions that occurred in prior meetings leading up to the vote and the final implication:
“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as “canonical and authentic”, belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as “canonical and ecclesiastical books”, belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet “canonical” from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.
The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
For emphasis::
“The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions.”
“the constant, ignorant, intentional demeaning of Protestants”
The constant, ignorant, intentional, and completely fictional demeaning of Protestants.
There. Fixed it.
This article is really wrong on so many things. And it seems to be a pattern with this Catholic writer.
I guess ignorance really is blissful!
Your post is another continuation of my premise!
“Your post is another continuation of my premise!”
An idea really has to be more substantial than that before we dignify it with the term “premise.”
The problem is that some people take any theological difference as a mortal insult. The wrongdoing lies not with the person expressing a different belief, but with those who don’t care to give other people the same freedom of conscience they demand for themselves.
Such people, and it’s not because they’re protestant, are the theological equivalent of leftards.
Ahhh, the royal "we". Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I don't normally bother responding, but sometimes it's fun to keep trolls entertained! Your post displays trolling at its lowest and may only qualify as gutterballs, instead!
Trolling for an example of protestant bashing on FR since 1998.
You can try to make it about me, but it’s really about the untrue thing that you said.
You can try to make it about me, but it’s really about the untrue thing that you said.
For further thought on this topic...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3164876/posts
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.