Posted on 01/08/2020 6:36:01 AM PST by Antoninus
Like shooting fish in a barrel almost.
I recently read here at FR that half of the UMC ran along to obey progressives and embrace fag marriage. How evangelical.
Error is in the UMC....no doubt.
Want to discuss the ongoing homosexual/pedophile problem with your denomination?
As I said....run along and play somewhere.
What "problem"? First of all, the KJV included the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books but, as Jerome did over a thousand year earlier, they were separate from the ACTUAL Divinely-inspired writings considered Holy Scripture.
Jerome and the Apocrypha
Question: St Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures. What are your comments?
Answer: True, yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.
Please read the following explanation from the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Martin Luther:
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
The apocrypha are useful for edification, but canonical in the sense that they are the rule for confirming matters of faith, no! (http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm)
Really nice post!
1st century
2nd century
3rd century
4th century
5th century
6th century
Catholics can’t do that with half of what the teach and practice.
Unless you speak Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, Swahili...
Ya get my drift?
Elsie, how ya been?!
And 12, 14, 26, and 30 refer to “faith only.”
As it turns out, the early church fathers were, in fact, Protestant.
Funny thing, eh?
Specifically, St. Jerome, who had lived in Dalmatia (Croatia), in Rome, in Constantinople, in Alexandria, in Antioch, in Jerusalem, and in Bethlehem, decided in his later years to set aside his own, scholarly doubts about the seven books of the Greek OT, and ended up including them in the canon.
Why? He had thought otherwise, and got into major arguments about this, conspicuously with Augustine, but in the end he gave in to Augustine. His overall rationale was, as he wrote to Rufinus: "We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?"
In other words, whatever his opinion as an intellectual, he could hardly be blamed for simply receiving the books the churches had already received.
Every bit of Scripture was debated up and down. At no time were theologians, philosophers, rhetoricians, translators, the experts, etc. shy about dispute. (Face it, dispute is what they do.) But thanks to and sometimes *despite* experts and intellectuals, it was the actual practice of the churches which prevailed. Trent nailed it down officially, but it nailed down was already for a millennium an a half by the practice of the churches .
As this Protestant Scripture scholar, Douglas Woodward, notes: "The Septuagint was the Bible for every Christian for almost 500 years and for at least half of Christendom during its next 1,000 years." SOURCE
= So it was not the opinion of one genius scholar or another, but the rule of "ubique, semper, ab omnibus." By this triple measure of diffusion, endurance, and universality, the books of the Bible were canonized.
BTW, it was thus for the early Protestant translations as well. The Greek canon wasn't dumped from major Protestant canons until the first decades of the 17th and some cases into the 19th century. For instance, The English (Protestant) Bible Society didn't decide to eliminate the Apocrypha until 1885.
And by what authority, I ask you? (Sincerely, I ask you.) Certainly not by the authority of "all the churches."
Mrs. D, I respect your fervor, but a simple history of St. Jerome shows that what you’ve claimed is not, in fact, true.
I mean, all you have to do is look at boatbums’ earlier post to know that many people not only didn’t accept those seven books, but they were *allowed* to not accept those seven.
Until AFTER God called Luther into heaven, and so the claim of “Luther took books out of the Bible” is blatantly false.
Quite simply, the facts do not fit your narrative, and refusing to accept those hurts your reputation.
The whole point is that Catholicism has NEVER been consistent on acceptance of the Apocrypha until AFTER the Reformation.
And after the Reformation, Catholicism anathematized their own church fathers, so I really don’t care about what they said after.
“ I recently read here at FR that half of the UMC ran along to obey progressives and embrace fag marriage.
As a member the catholic church - having the worlds largest gay clergy, that seems an odd statement...
Since you haven’t identified your sect, I assume you are ashamed that it condones homosexuality. How evangelical.
My sect is Christianity. I am a follower of Christ.
IF you're paying attention, and I seriously doubt it as it seems you just like to argue, I noted there are errors in the UMC.
Now, when you get the homosexual/pedophile problem resolved in your sect, please let us all know.
Now, run on back to your momma's basement and go play your Nintendo.
Aches and pains; but still vertical.
Just the seven CATHOLIC ones found here: Revelation chapters 1-3
You assume a lot.
Again...good to see you.
There’s no canon list in the three chapters you cited, nor in the rest of the Bible.
And I’ll note that the original challenger still hasn’t replied after I pointed out that his talking point was a failure.
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.