Jack Chick's View on Catholicism

[DrBubbaLove]

At most indeed it may suggest that, but as the esteemed (including by many RCs) J. N. D. Kelly finds the evidence testifying to is that,

After enumerating the ‘twenty-two’ (or perhaps twenty-four) books recognised by the Jews, he decrees that any books outside this list must be reckoned ‘apocryphal’: ‘They are not in the canon.’ Elsewhere, while admitting that the Church reads books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are strictly uncanonical, he insists on their being used solely ‘for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical’. This was the attitude which, with temporary concessions for tactical or other reasons, he was to maintain for the rest of his life—in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture. (J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), pp. 160-161.)

And as showed elsewhere I believe, this basic position rejecting the deuteros as Scripture was held by such men as Cardinals Cajetan approx 1,200 years later, and debated in Trent itself by the group headed by Cardinal Seripando.

But it was Rome who choose to disallow what has been allowed for approx. 1400 years of history.

That is absurd in the light of history as regards not belonging there as being equal to Scripture, and even Luther's Bible contained apocryphal books.

How? That is easy: it is because the church of Rome does not require the misleading “unanimous consent” of the fathers," nor did it disallow disagreement on the deuteros.

As Augustine, the main party in favor of the larger canon, apparently based upon his erroneous belief that the Jews translated the deuteros into the LXX, and his belief in the fable (and Jerome calls it that) of the Letter of Aristeas, explains, and contrary to your attempt to make the issue merely being a matter of level of inspiration,

"...concerning the issue of books which are not universally accepted, those which are admitted by the largest number of churches and the most important churches will be placed before those which are admitted by fewer churches and churches of lesser authority. Finally, there are certain books which are accepted by the majority of churches and some others which are accepted by important churches, in these cases I deem that both must be given the same authority.” – Augustine, On Christian Doctrine (2.8.12)

And as said, if use in liturgy means such was held as Scripture proper, then 1st Clement and the Judgment of Peter would make it, including even though no church father ever listed them as canonical. Rufinus said, “they would have been read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.”

Meanwhile, to suggest that those who were against the use of the deuteros, even at least for doctrine, later changed their mind by the time the deuteros appears in the Vulgate and or was used in liturgy paints a view of such as dim and fickle, contrary to history as already clearly shown you.

Rather, it is his own statements that are self-evident in rejecting the deuteros as Scripture, and thus RCs must resort to trying to extrapolate a change of mind re. these books, or worse, a mind that never held them as he said he did.

Again, Jerome stated (circa 393 AD),
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. “ (Jerome’s Preface to Samuel and Kings: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html)

And J. N. D. Kelly also wrote,
"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

As for trying to minimized the distinction btwn the deuteros and holly God-inspired Scripture, an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria (an assembly of “glosses,” that of brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in the margins of the Vulgate Bible) expresses this distinction:

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention,or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. (note 124, written in AD 1498, and also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century..., emp mine, Untitled Document)

Contextually, what you leave out was that it was Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version that Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

"It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. 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?"

And if Jerome said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original [Hebrew], and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ,” why do Roman Catholics support the LXX version today?

Meanwhile, regarding churches choosing to read Daniel in the translation of Theodotion Daniel to Greek, Jerome wondered why one should use the version of a translator whom he regarded as heretic and judaizer [Theodotion]. (Jerome, "Apology Against Rufinus, Book II.)

As for making distinction btwn the additions to Daniel and established Scripture, we find that Jerome was following the right judgment of the churches in making that distinction in translating into Latin the full LXX text of Daniel, including the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, by prefacing sections “with a critical symbol showing that they were not included in the Hebrew:”

in his Preface to the book of Daniel (which he cites above in Rufinus, II.33) he wrote,
..both Eusebius and Apollinarius have answered him after the same tenor, that the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew...For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. And in this connection I am surprised to be told that certain fault-finders complain that I have on my own initiative truncated the book.…And since all the churches of Christ, whether belonging to the Greek-speaking territory or the Latin, the Syrian or the Egyptian, publicly read this edition with its asterisks and obeli [distinguishing it from the original], let the hostile-minded not begrudge my labor. (St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958) pp. 15-157)

Therefore, by not giving his own reasons here (which as seen on other places, argued for the Hebrew canon), but retaining Jewish distinction which all the churches of Christ retained, the fools and slanders had no case against him here (though they would based on other prefaces), but neither do you that the church themselves did not make retain that distinction while reading the apocryphal additions to Daniel.


Certainly not the one that makes Jerome to be changing his mind about the deuteros, or as never making the distinction btwn it and wholly inspired Scripture.

Then you should stop doing it.

So somehow Jerome translating a little of the Greek LXX (I read that he himself only translated the Tobit fable and Judith), and or using it means that he did not make the distinctions that he said he did, and Catholic scholarship said he did??? Are they all wrong? Or that if he submitted to church pressure (though it is evident doubts and disagreements on the canon were allow right into Trent) then that negates enlisting him or the like as examples of those who rejected the deuteros as Scripture?

Or do you think the argument is that we are saying the deuteros cannot be included in Protestant Bibles, or even be read? Just what is your argument?

Mine simply is that Luther was no maverick in excluding the deuteros as Scripture proper, and neither did he exclude them from his translation, and which may be edifying, at least some, but that he and we have support for our distinction btwn the deuteros as Scripture proper from certain of the ancients who were esteemed RCs, not that we need such, or hold such in Cath esteem.


That such always either held the deuteros as wholly God-inspired Scripture or else they were dim witted, fickle, obstinate, knuckleheads is a false dilemma, as it excludes the historically substantiated alternative. Which is the many did not held the deuteros, whole or in part, as Scripture, but which they were not required to do, as seen by the debate right in Trent, and the bare majority vote to require this recognition, which is only part of the history which you ignore.

So maybe I must provide some. First a summation of some ECFs (from here) whom you need to exclude as making the distinctions at issue, or relegating them to being dim witted, fickle, obstinate, knuckleheads:

1. Melito, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13-14. He claims 22 books ending with Ezra/Nehemiah; his only deviation from Jewish tradition and the Protestant OT canon was to separate Ruth from Judges and as a result omit Esther (see Jerome’s explanation of Jewish tradition in his Preface to the Book of Kings, listed below).
2. Origen, in Eusebius, 6.25.2ff. He claims 22 books, but Eusebius’ copy lists 21 ending with Esther, omitting the 12.
3. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4.35 in NPNF s2, v7. He claims 22 books ending with Daniel, and appends Baruch & Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah/Lamentations as “one book.”
4. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Psalms, prol. 15. Claims 22 books, ending with Esther. Like Origen, he counted the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah/Lamentations as one book. He says that the Hellenistic Jews in Rome might count 24 books, adding Tobit and Judith (he didn’t understand Jewish tradition as Jerome did; the Jewish list of 24 books for those who taught their infants the Greek alphabet was the same as the 22, just separating Ruth and Lamentations from Judges and Jeremiah, respectively).
5. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39. He claims 22 books, ending with Daniel. Like Melito, he mistakenly separated Ruth from Judges and had to omit Esther to maintain 22 books. Like Cyril, he also used the LXX and counted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as one book with Jeremiah/Lamentations.
6. Gregory Nazianzus, Carmina 1.12.5. He claims 22 books, ending with Daniel. Like Origen, he appends the Epistle of Jeremiah to Jeremiah/Lamentations as “one book.” He is silent on Lamentations (which we know was contained in all of the MSS containing Jeremiah).
7. Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures, 4. He claims 22 books, ending with Esther. His only aberration is silence on Lamentations (which we know was part of all the MSS containing Jeremiah).
8. Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 36. He claims 22 books, ending with Song of Songs. He, like Epiphanius was silent on Lamentations (which we know was part of all the MSS containing Jeremiah).
9. Jerome, Preface to the Book of Kings in NPNF s2, v6. He claims 22 ending with Esther. This is the list he calls his “helmeted introduction” to all the OT canonical books – exactly as in the Protestant canon). He also comments on an alternate Jewish tradition which separates Ruth and Lamentations from Judges and Jeremiah, respectively, putting them with the Hagiographa, yielding a count of 24 books.

Later, the Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages, which source it seems you must reject as ignorant or as being anti-Catholic:

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament, emp mine)

Also, the Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions,

And among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:

►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, stated in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):

"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.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

► Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement. 64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836

The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West. (Untitled Document)

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

This definition came over 1400 hundred years (April 8th, 1546) after the last book was written — and after Luther died (February 8,1546) And if the canon list was dogma prior to Trent, then there were many Catholics throughout history who would have been de facto excommunicated. More.

Also, some of the books of the Pseudepigrapha were invoked by some church fathers, and some found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches (which also differ with that of Rome, but which is seldom made a major issue by Roman Catholic apologists, unlike as with Protestants).

That is a strawman, an argument i never made. But Tobit is quite a fable, while i would say that that the Wisdom of Solomon is the closest to Scripture, but is not written by him, and may possibly be a 1st c. document.

To argue that all the sources who to various degrees expressed their rejection of the deuteros were doing so as the EO does with Revelation, or that none clearly rejected them is simply untenable in the light of history. Give it up. As shown, Cyril of Jerusalem alone refuted this idea exhorting his readers to “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings...And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

Making ECFs into men who did not distinqush btwn the deuteros and wholly God-inspired Scripture is no more tenable than making them into heretics i they did. The rest of your sophistry is already refuted.

You made a terrible mistake in deciding to submit to an elitist church which is distinctively absent in NT record of the NT church, and it now seems you must defend it and attack those who expose her at whatever cost.

Repeating the same claim about Saint Jerome's work looks bad. It is easily discredited by Saint Jerome himself defending his prefaces against a heretic of his day making similar claims. As Saint Jerome said then regarding his preface and what a heretic attempted wrongly to make of it, taking his comments and now with those also Cardinal Seripando's comments at Trent, such a person is making a fool of themselves and a slanderer of those men.

Am more than satisfied neither Saint Jerome or any of the ECFs or any non-heretic theologian; from those using some of the 7 books as part of liturgy (early 2nd century) long before any list approved sacred books first included (4th century) and even the Cardinal previously quoted at Trent NEVER once considered these books as not Sacred Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This paragraph reflects very poorly on you and your argument.

Rather, choosing to submit to an elitist "one true church" which is distinctively absent in NT record of the NT church and contrary to it, reflects very poorly on such and the arguments they must make to defend it and attack those who expose her.

Catholics who attack Protestant faith are essentially engaging in like denunciation, as a "one true cults" who reject both.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I will admit that asking God into your heart is good, but it is the DOING of things that gets the sheep into heaven.

No, plenty of lost people do good things, and works cannot never make one actually good enough to be with God, else Christ would simply be one who gave us a better system of salvation by works than the law did.

Instead, here the works testify to salvific faith, "things which accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and in the light of which these sheep are manifest as being sheep, and being rewarded in grace. consistent with Hebrews 10:35:
"Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward."

As to what precisely justifies one, that of works making one actually worthy of salvation or effectual faith being counted for righteousness, the answer is the latter:
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:3-6)

Abraham was not under the Law, and already was a relatively "good" man before his faith (in God to do what he could not effect) was counted for righteousness, (Gn. 15:6) and at which point he was not born again and thus formally justified by his own holiness, but his faith was counted as such and Abraham obeyed God, and entered into covenant with him (Gn. 17) before he offered up Issac upon the altar (Gn. 22).

Moreover, the "works" disallowed in Rm. 4 pertains to all systems of justification on the premise of one actually being worthy by works, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

One cannot rest upon his works as gaining him salvation, but must abased himself before God as a damned and destitute sinner and cast all his faith upon the mercy of God in Christ to save him by His sinless shed blood. (Romans 3:10-5:1) As did the theif on the cross, for "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

However, texts such as Rm. 4 do not exclude that one is justified by works in that they validate his faith as being salvific, thus "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) For as James said and as reformers taught, "faith without works is dead." Biblical saving faith is only that which will effect the "obedience of faith," (Rm. 16:26), and indeed everything we do is a result of what we really believe (at least at the moment). And thus believers are judged by their overall works, which justify them as being believers, manifesting that they have a complete faith, as James 2 speaks of.

In which James would be contradicting both Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3-6ff if he was speaking of the same thing as Rm. 4 and other texts, making what Abraham much later (Genesis 22) did to be what appropriated salvific justification, versus showing "how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:22-23)

Evidently meaning Abraham was already counted as righteousness by God, whom he obeyed and talked with, faith being imputed for righteousness, but like as a real prophecy is manifested as being so by its fulfillment, so was Abraham's faith was confirmed by its outworking, though Gn. 22 is only one example and not the first.

And as those who truly believe manifest "things which accompany salvation," so those who do such are promised and given salvation, as are those who believe, as faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Thus it is in the light of their works which testify to their faith that Lord blesses those in Matthew 25:31-46.

In contrast are those who merely profess faith, and may do works such as preaching, or even miracles, as in Matthew 7:22, but do not manifest the spiritual affection and sacrificial love and holy fruits which manifest true faith. 1 John spends 4 chapters describing such and then states,
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)

Therefore while is faith which appropriates salvation, it is a faith that will confess the Lord Jesus in word and in deed, with baptism being the first formal manifestation of that. Thus the promises,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

And the explanation:
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

And as souls with purifying, sanctifying justifying faith, they were thus baptized, and evidenced desire for instruction:
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:47-48)

And to such pertains the promises that if one truly believes then they will be saved, as well as promises of salvation to those who did works, which is because the former (justifying faith) effects the latter, manifesting that they are believers. Like as Christ said "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?," (Mark 2:9) since the former effected the latter, then an evangelical text can both promise salvation to those who believe, as well as to those who do works of obedience, meaning that if one believes with the kind of faith which effects the obedience of faith toward its Object, the Lord Jesus, then such will be saved, faith and works being inseparable (not that he cannot fall).

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. (Romans 10:8-12)

Thus there is no contradiction, but while to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) with God "purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9) yet since true saving faith is that which effects obedience, bearing "things that accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) then salvation is promised and given to those who bear such fruit, For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," (Romans 8:4) and persevere in obedient faith. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:35-39)

Which is all to the glory of God. For man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)

Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything good, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace which denotes unmerited favor, God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Repeating the same claim about Saint Jerome's work looks bad. It is easily discredited by Saint Jerome himself defending his prefaces against a heretic of his day making similar claims. As Saint Jerome said then regarding his preface and what a heretic attempted wrongly to make of it, taking his comments and now with those also Cardinal Seripando's comments at Trent, such a person is making a fool of themselves and a slanderer of those men.

Rather, as shown, Jerome was following the right judgment of the churches in making that distinction in translating into Latin the full LXX text of Daniel, including the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, by prefacing sections “with a critical symbol showing that they were not included in the Hebrew.”
Therefore, by not giving his own reasons here (which as seen on other places, argued for the Hebrew canon), but retaining Jewish distinction which all the churches of Christ retained, the fools and slanders had no case against him here (though they would based on other prefaces), but neither do you that the church themselves did not make retain that distinction while reading the apocryphal additions to Daniel.

Am more than satisfied neither Saint Jerome or any of the ECFs or any non-heretic theologian; from those using some of the 7 books as part of liturgy (early 2nd century) long before any list approved sacred books first included (4th century) and even the Cardinal previously quoted at Trent NEVER once considered these books as not Sacred Scripture.

You are resorting to plain denial of the facts and anachronistic obscurantism, or willful blindness.
Once again, even Cyril of Jerusalem alone refutes you: Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings...And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. ” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

As for Cardinal Cajetan, he once again he states,

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.

Nonetheless, 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.

You thus presume that both Jerome and Cajetan means that the exclusion of the deuteros as canonical for confirming matters of faith, but the inclusion in the canon for the purpose of edification of the faithful means they are sacred Scripture, as being wholly inspired by God as Scripture (as a substantive body of Divine Truth) is uniquely affirmed to be, yet Cajetan affirmed what Jerome said in his Protogus Galeatus ("Helmeted Preface") or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, circa 391, which is that the deuteros "must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings, and adds, 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.

And gain, as explained in the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria:

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification.

Thus all you can argue is that among such as Jerome the deuteros had a clear second class status in distinction from wholly inspired Scripture, which (by including them as Sacred Scripture) you must define as including books that are not or at least are not to be used for doctrine. Which is closer to the view of early reformers than Catholicism, and does not refute my argument here.

Your blithe dismissal of and misconstruace what history actually evidences, in favor of your desired narrative discourages further attempts a meaningful exchange. Just admit that that Luther was no maverick in excluding the deuteros as Scripture proper, and did he exclude them from his translation for edification, and that he and we have support for our distinction btwn the deuteros as Scripture proper from certain of the ancients who were esteemed RCs, not that we need such, or hold such in Cath esteem.

And that it was Rome who first choose to universally exclude - after the death of Luther - what was once allowed, resulting in the deuteros being held as equal to the Hebrew canon, and used for doctrine, contrary to prior aforementioned distinctions.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You don't have to. But why does James 5:16 say, "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. (KJV: . . . availeth much)
The Catholic and biblical teaching isn’t that Jesus won’t listen to rotten sinners; rather, it is that prayers of those who have attained a higher level of righteousness will have more power (per the above).

Of course, this biblical view isn’t possible when one takes the unbiblical position that there is no differential righteousness, and we’re all sinners to exactly the same degree; even good works are “filthy rags,” etc.
What does James 5:16 mean? You tell me. I think a straightforward reading suggests that there is such a thing as a righteous person, and that his or her prayers are more powerful.

As to levels of righteousness, that is clearly the implication of the very notion of sanctification. That we can attain to a higher level of less sin and more holiness is so self-evident from the Bible that it is not even necessary to give proof texts (but here’s one: 2 Tim 4:6-8).

A straightforward reading of the Bible, including this passage, would suggest otherwise.

It is true that while one is counted righteousness by effectual faith, one may grow in grace, and that God rewards the outworking of this faith, including by more effectual prayer.

However, that will not support praying to created beings in Heaven, which you can nowhere show from Scripture, with no one (except by pagans) addressing anyone else in Heaven but God, despite appox. 200 prayers inspired by the Spirit in Scripture, and despite there always being plenty of created beings in Heaven to pray to, and despite prayer being a most basic essential function, while instruction on prayer to Heaven only directs believers to address God directly.

To whom they have direct access by faith, (Heb. 10:19) and with Christ being the only Heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, who alone is said to do so in Heaven, and to whom it clearly tells believers to look to, and is uniquely qualified to be so.

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us," "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:1-2)

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:14-16)

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" (Hebrews 10:19-20)

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25)

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5)

Glory to God!

 

[Monk Brendan]

What about that lady who had it, Theresa? To me that doesn't seem godly at all.

Didn't you pay attention to my last post about this subject? I said:

Okay, fine. I won't argue about it any more.

Now what part of I won't argue about it anymore did you NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

[Monk Brendan]

in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture.

If he is citing them AS Scripture, maybe it is because he recognized that they WERE Scripture.

J. N. D. Kelly

Who was an Anglican deacon and then Canon, writing from a Protestant world view. Citing someone like that is NOT a way to come to a consensus. Besides, the Bible was defined 1,700 years ago, by a consensus of CHRISTIANS. So whatever you have to quote against the "apocrypha" it is moot.

 

[Monk Brendan]

And as said, if use in liturgy means such was held as Scripture proper, then 1st Clement and the Judgment of Peter would make it, including even though no church father ever listed them as canonical. Rufinus said, “they would have been read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine.”

There is NO use of 1st Clement and the Judgment of Peter in either the Roman liturgy or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, so how can you begin calling them canonical?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Rather, choosing to submit to an elitist "one true church" which is distinctively absent in NT record of the NT church and contrary to it, reflects very poorly on such and the arguments they must make to defend it and attack those who expose her.

And writing a screed about how the Catholic Church ruined Christianity is worthless, if the author of said drivel is not competent enough to proof read his own publication. Here is the first sentence of the first paragraph: "Catholic apologists decieve souls by asserting that their church is uniquely the one true church which the Lord Jesus founded."

Everyone knows that the rule is "I before E except after C or when sounded as A like neighbor and weigh." Now, if I was writing what I felt was an important document, I would have spell checked everything before I posted it.

 

[Monk Brendan]

However, that will not support praying to created beings in Heaven,

If you are sick, don't you ask your friends to join you in prayer so you might be healed? The "created beings" in heaven are our friends, some of whom we know personally and others we know by the miracles that have happened. And, remember, when Christ died for us, He trampled down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

Also in John 8:56-58 (KJV)
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Now, if Abraham was dead, which Calvin and other reformers teach, then how could he have rejoiced to see Jesus?

Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. John 8:52-53 says, "Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

If Calvin is wrong about that, then his teachings are in error about "soul sleep" or even the concept of death. And if he is wrong about that, then how can his teachings be the pure Gospel?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Rather, as shown, Jerome was following the right judgment of the churches in making that distinction in translating into Latin the full LXX text of Daniel, including the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, by prefacing sections “with a critical symbol showing that they were not included in the Hebrew.”
Therefore, by not giving his own reasons here (which as seen on other places, argued for the Hebrew canon), but retaining Jewish distinction which all the churches of Christ retained, the fools and slanders had no case against him here (though they would based on other prefaces), but neither do you that the church themselves did not make retain that distinction while reading the apocryphal additions to Daniel.

You are resorting to plain denial of the facts and anachronistic obscurantism, or willful blindness.
Once again, even Cyril of Jerusalem alone refutes you: Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings...And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. ” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

As for Cardinal Cajetan, he once again he states,

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.

Nonetheless, 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.

You thus presume that both Jerome and Cajetan means that the exclusion of the deuteros as canonical for confirming matters of faith, but the inclusion in the canon for the purpose of edification of the faithful means they are sacred Scripture, as being wholly inspired by God as Scripture (as a substantive body of Divine Truth) is uniquely affirmed to be, yet Cajetan affirmed what Jerome said in his Protogus Galeatus ("Helmeted Preface") or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, circa 391, which is that the deuteros "must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings, and adds, 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.

And gain, as explained in the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria:

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification.

Thus all you can argue is that among such as Jerome the deuteros had a clear second class status in distinction from wholly inspired Scripture, which (by including them as Sacred Scripture) you must define as including books that are not or at least are not to be used for doctrine. Which is closer to the view of early reformers than Catholicism, and does not refute my argument here.

Your blithe dismissal of and misconstruace what history actually evidences, in favor of your desired narrative discourages further attempts a meaningful exchange. Just admit that that Luther was no maverick in excluding the deuteros as Scripture proper, and did he exclude them from his translation for edification, and that he and we have support for our distinction btwn the deuteros as Scripture proper from certain of the ancients who were esteemed RCs, not that we need such, or hold such in Cath esteem.

And that it was Rome who first choose to universally exclude - after the death of Luther - what was once allowed, resulting in the deuteros being held as equal to the Hebrew canon, and used for doctrine, contrary to prior aforementioned distinctions.

Correct, I am willing to let Saint Jerome defends his own words that Sacred Scripture is Sacred Scripture. Something the Calvinist theologian and Anglican Priest were apparently unwilling to do. That a Protestant wishing to trash the dueterocanonical books should find in their research a distorted view of Saint Jerome's writings should come as no surprise.
I do agree with Saint Jerome that people who do what those men did to his words are making fools of themselves and slander of him. The fact in practice the alleged distinctions falsely being attributed to their usage of words never made any difference to Saint Jerome quoting from those books further demonstrates he and everyone prior all held these books as Sacred Scripture.
In private writings Saint Jerome often quotes from Sacred Scripture and does so without distinction in use of these 7 deuterocanonicals, which should at least seem odd to those who think his prefaces indicated some imagined lessor value of books long held by all before him as Sacred Scripture.

More from Saint Jerome:

"Pamphlets are written against me; they are forced on every one's attention; and yet they are not openly published, so that the hearts of the simple are disturbed, and no opportunity is given me of answering."

"He declared that he had meant to follow me as his predecessor in his translation, and to borrow an authority for his work from some poor works of mine." (borrow the words in his prefaces in making their own transaltions)​

About a letter falsely claimed to be from his hand where he supposedly by his Vulgate prefaces should be understood as disparaging the Septuagint.

"It is this same man, then, who wrote this fictitious letter of retractation in my name, making out that my translation of the Hebrew books was bad, who, we now hear, accuses me of having translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint."​

To the allegation his words would dishonor the Septugiant (Jewish OT transaltion with all 7 books that we have been discussing) my bolding added.

"Am I likely to have said anything derogatory to the seventy translators, whose work I carefully purged from corruptions and gave to Latin readers many years ago, and daily expound it at our conventual gatherings; whose version of the Psalms has so long been the subject of my meditation and my song?"

"Yet the Septuagint has rightly kept its place in the churches, either because it is the first of all the versions in time, made before the coming of Christ, or else because it has been used by the apostles (only however in places where it does not disagree with the Hebrew)."
​

Regarding use of Septuigent or not when the Church had condemned the Septuigent translation - see his Daniel preface

"What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?" (regarding use of Septuigent or not when the Church had condemned the Septuigent translation - see his Daniel preface​

Explaining why he deviated from the Septuagint in translating particular verses (nothing to do with adding or deleting books to the OT which he did not do)

"I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs."..."I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end."​

Commenting on how the Septuigent being in LONG USE (read accepted as Sacred Scripture) by the Church BEFORE he translated it's books to Latin. Note that Gentiles using a Greek translation of Sacred Scripture (the Septuagint) comes about in the first century hundreds of years before this 5th century letter is writtne. So the ACCEPTANCE of all these OT books, including the deuterocanonical, by the Church dates to the first century.(my bolds added).

"By all this it is made clear, first that the version of the Seventy translators which has gained an established position by having been so long in use, was profitable to the churches, because that by its means the Gentiles heard of the coming of Christ before he came; secondly, that the other translators are not to be reproved, since it was not their own works that they published but the divine books which they translated; and, thirdly, that my own familiar friend should frankly accept from a Christian and a friend what he has taken great pains to obtain from the Jews and has written down for him at great cost."​

 

[~Anastasia~]

But in the time of the Apostles, and for (a disputed) period of time after, there WAS only one true Church. To depart from her was to embrace heresy and/or apostasize.

 

[prodromos]

You are resorting to plain denial of the facts and anachronistic obscurantism, or willful blindness.
Once again, even Cyril of Jerusalem alone refutes you: Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings...And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. ” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

As I posted earlier, in the East the term "apocryphal" refers to an entirely different class of books such as the "gospel of Thomas". It is not referring to the deuterocanonicals.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

Because we (Orthodox) do not (that I am aware of) certify stigmata.

Neither does the Roman Catholic Church. Francis and Padre Pio were canonized for reasons OTHER than stigmata.

OTOH, St. Paul might have been a stigmatic. "I bear on my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." These words are embroidered on the paramandyas worn by Orthodox monks and nuns under the cassock.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[Jack Isaacks]

As for my cell phone -- I'm sure it's outright demon-possessed

An old monk from the Holy Mountain once saw a telephone and understood it at once. "Satan merely stations inferior demons on either end of this infernal device."

From what I've heard about the Athonite phone system, not only are the demons inferior but very inefficient.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But in the time of the Apostles, and for (a disputed) period of time after, there WAS only one true Church. To depart from her was to embrace heresy and/or apostasize.

Heresy and even excommunication are not equivalent to deny a faith in Christ/apostasy. Saint Peter's 3 denials would be an example of apostasy and he knew that as soon as he did it.
Not that I think the quote above meant that, but did not want others to misunderstand.

A heretic needs correction on an error. If the heretic in full communion with the Church is obstinate and refuses correction, and more probably continues not just in belief but promoting the error among the faithful, then excommunication would be the final step, then probably only after considerable effort at correction. Someone who has publicly denied their faith (St Peter x3) in Christ needs to repent of that and come back as it represents otherwise eternal consequence (damnation) if not corrected ("deny me before men and..."). The heretic retains a faith in Christ, albeit with some errors in beliefs.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Heresy and even excommunication are not equivalent to deny a faith in Christ/apostasy. Saint Peter's 3 denials would be an example of apostasy and he knew that as soon as he did it.
Not that I think the quote above meant that, but did not want others to misunderstand.

A heretic needs correction on an error. If the heretic in full communion with the Church is obstinate and refuses correction, and more probably continues not just in belief but promoting the error among the faithful, then excommunication would be the final step, then probably only after considerable effort at correction. Someone who has publicly denied their faith (St Peter x3) in Christ needs to repent of that and come back as it represents otherwise eternal consequence (damnation) if not corrected ("deny me before men and..."). The heretic retains a faith in Christ, albeit with some errors in beliefs.

Thanks for explaining further. That's why I said and/or but you are right that it could be misunderstood.

 

[Philip_B]

Rather, choosing to submit to an elitist "one true church" which is distinctively absent in NT record of the NT church and contrary to it, reflects very poorly on such and the arguments they must make to defend it and attack those who expose her.

Catholics who attack Protestant faith are essentially engaging in like denunciation, as a "one true cults" who reject both.

repeating the claim, is both disingenuous, and fails to provide any contribution of value.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There is NO use of 1st Clement and the Judgment of Peter in either the Roman liturgy or the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, so how can you begin calling them canonical?

I did not call them canonical, but, interacting with the "use in liturgy=canonical" logic, i said, "if use in liturgy means such was held as Scripture proper, then 1st Clement and the Judgment of Peter would make it, including even though no church father ever listed them as canonical."

As for the use of 1 Clement, according to Eusebius, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, about the year 170 testifies to the fact that this Epistle was read in the Church of Corinth from ancient times. (Temple Chevallier; "A Translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome," p. 13) speaking of "this public reading of Clement's epistle as the ancient custom of very many churches, and as having continued down to his own time." (Sir William Smith; "A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines: A-D." p. 554).

First Clement is listed as canonical in "Canon 85" of the Canons of the Apostles (a document approved by the Eastern Council in Trullo in 692 but rejected by Pope Sergius I), and was included in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus (in a separate section),

Regarding the Judgment of Peter, Rufinus stated,
“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which [being] last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Shepherd of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 36-38, ~ 400 AD)

The Judgment of Peter as meaning the Didache, was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the New Testament,[6][7][8] while being rejected by others as spurious or non-canonical,[9][10][11]

 

[PeaceByJesus]

As I posted earlier, in the East the term "apocryphal" refers to an entirely different class of books such as the "gospel of Thomas". It is not referring to the deuterocanonicals.

You will have to do better than that to establish that what he meant was those books. Cyril distinguishes them from the 22 books, which can be shown, refers to the Hebrew canon.

And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters. - CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 4 (Cyril of Jerusalem)

But clarification as to semantics as came to be understood is offered by Bishop Kallistos:

"The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (3 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are often called the ‘Apocrypha’). These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament." - Bishop Kallistos (Ware), The Orthodox Church, (Penguin Books, 1997), p. 200