Posted on 07/23/2019 9:37:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Rome’s canon was not definitively defined until Trent in the 1500s.
“The Papyrus P.Bas. 2.43 was written by a man named Arrianus to his brother Paulus, who was believed to be named after the apostle Paul.”
________________________________
Please reread that sentence once again; this time, do it out loud and slowly.
LOL P.S. I read it the same way you did. It was only after I actually REREAD IT OUT LOUD AND SLOWLY did I see the word “after,” in the sentence.
LOLOL
Not forbidden unless you are a bishop.
“The “Roman Catholic Church” was not the only common Christian sect at this time.”
The Catholic Church really was never a sect at all - it was just the Church founded by Christ and the Roman Church was part of it. Protestants have sects. Catholics just have the Church.
The canon of the Bible was defined by Pope Damasus I in the Council of Rome in 382 and by a series of councils in North Africa presided over by St. Augustine between 393 and 419. The same Pope Damasus also commissioned the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible in 383 which contains the same list of books. From this point on this list of books for the Bible was accepted by the entire Western church. With a few exceptions, the Eastern church came to accept this same list of books in the 5th century. All that the Council of Trent did was restate what was already the accepted canon of Scripture.
Also, if it's true that if I had just the Gospel of John, I would have what I need for salvation (that may be trrue in a sense!) I could just as truly say that If I had just the first CHAPTER of John I would have what I need, since in tells me about Christ, the Light which "enlightens every man", who was come into the world, and "from His fullness we have all received."
Or perhaps I would need only a couple of verses from Matthew:
Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’In which case, all we need is maybe Deuteronomy 6:5 or Deuteronomy 10:12.All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
But this is minimalism, or a most unwise reductionism. If that's "it", then--- hey! The Bible comprises 30,000+ verses! And so, most of what God has given us, is a pile of unneeded redundancies --- a pile of distractions, as it were.
That's major error. God forbid that anyone should think that.
Philip: "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?"
The Ethiopian royal official: : "And how can I, unless some man show me?" (Acts 8:26-40)
Nope. The NT and OT canon's were not defined for Roman Catholicism until Trent. History is clear on this.
Something can be "needed", and be "profitable," and can make you "complete," without it being A*L*L that is needed.
I don't mind spelling out analogies.
Tip 'o the hat.
Bogus argument.
You claim "tradition" is essential.
But which part(s) of "tradition" do you accept or reject?
Which ones are THE authoritative ones to use?
And I thought Catholicanswers was bad. You didn’t get this from them did you?
“One is more than enough.”
Polygamy is self punishing.
L
“Not forbidden unless you are a bishop.”
True?? For 2nd century Christians??
After some research I found it did exist - more than one wife at the same time - but it also always seemed to be controversial even when admitted, with those in the churches who opposed it, some who accepted it, and within each century became more opposed and denied as Christian; when by the 1800s most any Christian thelogians opposed it.
“Wives”. One is more than enough.
In my case, one WAS more than enough.
Marry well - it’s a decision that will stay with you forever.
Stuck in the legalism of Protestantism, I am afraid that you do not understand the relationship between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisteria. The Ordinary Magisterium is the day to day universal teaching of the Church. This, by itself, is considered infallible. That Pope Damasus I and the African synods declared what was the canon of the Bible, and that this was accepted by everyone, was enough for this to be considered a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and thus infallible. There was no need for an extraordinary declaration by a church council. This is true of much church teaching.
The definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, either by a ecumenical council or by a solemn proclamation by a pope, are only done when the ordinary teaching is called into doubt; hence these actions care called those of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Or are we to say that the Christian church only defined that Jesus was the uncreated Son of God at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century? The Western church universally accepted the list of books declared by Pope Damasus I, the African councils, and included in the authorized Vulgate edition, since the 4th century. And to use your words: History is clear on this.
Dude...a Roman Catholic talking about legalism?
Roman Catholicism is probably one of the most legalistic denominations on the planet.
The Western church universally accepted the list of books declared by Pope Damasus I, the African councils, and included in the authorized Vulgate edition, since the 4th century.
Patently false.
Just repeating a point does not make it a fact.
Did not Pope Damasus I and the African councils list the books of the Bible?
Did not Pope Innocent I, writing to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse in 405, confirm this same list?
Did not the Vulgate edition of the Bible authorized by Pope Damasus contain these same books?
Did not every edition of the Bible produced by the Catholic Church contain these same books since the 4th century?
Did not the Council of Florence confirm this same list in 1441?
Were not these books always included in the official liturgies of the Church as Scripture?
History is clear on this issue: the Catholic Church has accepted the list of books in the Bible as defined by Pope Damasus I and the North African councils since the 4th century. In reaffirming this list, the Council of Trend did not introduce anything that the Catholic Church did not already hold.
I’m afraid I must disappoint you. I am not an apologist and only rarely do I read apologists. A catechist is what I am. And a literate person.
Are you asking to know about Traditions, so that you may "stand fast and hold the traditions" as Scripture commands?
F.F Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, p234.
If you're going to appeal to the various Councils for the canon you're about to wipe out a great deal of Roman Catholic mariology.
IF you accept these Councils that is.
Or a better question may be, do you accept ALL of the edicts/teachings/rulings of the various Councils?
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.