Posted on 07/19/2018 4:42:01 AM PDT by marshmallow
As to "When"? The century. I wouldn't be surprised if you could answer this adequately in under 30 words, even without looking anything up.
These are not trick questions.
I've given you the answer for the Roman Catholic....the Council of Trent, Session IV, April, 1546.
It lists the OT and NT Canon for the Roman Catholic and declares "that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."
That's your answer as a Roman Catholic.
You have no choice but to accept it as a Roman Catholic.
Now, if you want a good history on the development of the OT and NT canons in Christianity, I recommend The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce. It's an excellent read.
As to "When"? The century. I wouldn't be surprised if you could answer this adequately in under 30 words, even without looking anything up.
Again....your answer as a Roman Catholic is the Council of Trent, 4th session, April 1546.
I don't know the exact time it convened or adjourned nor what they had to eat.
Nonono. I asked you what YOUR answer is.
I can supply that for myself.
Nor am I an a position to tell you what YOUR choices are. That's why I'm asking you. Only you know how you would answer them.
This is a search for foundational facts, along the lines of the excellent answer you gave for Trent. Not trick questions. Who/what group, what books, when, where, why, to whom.
Well, with all due respect....yes I am based on Roman Catholic writings. These are not my opinions.
All I'm doing is quoting the decrees of the Council of Trent....these are your dogmas as a Roman Catholic.
You have to follow them....at least that's what ya'll tell us all the time. But, as a Roman Catholic, you really have no choice but to follow the decrees of Trent.
I can understand why you don't like them.
But that is something I've noticed among Roman Catholics. They don't like it when they are challenged with their own dogmas.
I quote Unam Sanctam to RCs who disagree with and flat out hate Francis and they say they don't have to abide by it. Really....a dogmatic proclamation like US and a RC doesn't have to abide by it????
This is a search for foundational facts, along the lines of the excellent answer you gave for Trent. Not trick questions. Who/what group, what books, when, where, why, to whom.
The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce is an excellent source for all of your questions.
That's why I'm asking what YOUR answers are, not what you think my answers ought to be. Do the synods of Carthage and Hippo and their canons mean anything to you?
Are there any other earlier sources for the canon that you can cite?
It would be nice to have a calm discussion based on shared facts.
Your dodging on Trent....they're pretty clear on the exclusive use of the vulgate.
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm
I really don't see where you, or any other Roman Catholic, have a choice in the matter.
*******
And you really shouldn't be giving a rendering of what you think Scripture says as you are not an ordained priest....unless you can produce the dogmatic meaning as determined by Rome for the verse(s) in question.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
SECOND DECREE Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm
You, and all of the Roman Catholics on these threads are kinda in a pickle over this as ya'll all render your own opinions and use various versions of Scripture in these discussions.
I'm guessing this would rise to the level of a mortal sin in Roman Catholicism.
Again....The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce gives you all your answers you're looking for.
It would be nice to have a calm discussion based on shared facts.
For the Roman Catholic, the only shared fact that matters is the Council of Trent in this matter. That is when Rome dogmatically named their canon.
...is like I ask "What time is it?" and you say "Read this author on clockmaking through the ages."
The comment on Trent doesn't even reference the millennium we're talking about. We're getting an understanding of that early ekklesia, remember?
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.