The law, the commandments, and Christians.

[Valletta]

Nah. There was no universal acceptance of the apocrypha. Some ECFs accepted them while others did not. Here are two examples.

The site won’t let me copy a quote.

Athanasius stated that the “books called apocrypha should not be mixed with inspired scripture (Festal letter 39:4-5).

Jerome stared that the books of the apocrypha were not scripture but profitable to read so he included them in the vulgate but in a separate section.

The anti reformation council of Trent made the apocrypha official for the CC.

Hopefully when they fix the bug in the website we can revisit this topic.

The 73 books of the Bible were made official by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. The Councils and the approval by the pope made it official for Catholics, we don't presume to judge what makes something official within a another person's religion. There have been various affirmations over the years which I previously listed, actually there are even more such as with Vatican I. All European Bibles contained 73 books from the time until reformation times, that is for most of Christianity.

 

[Valletta]

The magisterium is composed of fallible humans therefore they cannot, by necessity, be infallible.

But did not quote from the apocrypha books themselves. Look you can’t deny that the early church was divided about the inspiration of the apocrypha. There is a plethora of evidence. Whatever the CC did they did around the 5th century.

Again, the process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. Different texts were accepted at different masses as Holy Scripture from region to region before the canon was established once and for all. You may term this process as a Church divided, perhaps you say the Apostles were divided until they came to an understanding of a subject. As I said, the official canon was established in the late 300s. To insist on another canon after that, such as Martin Luther did, would separate one from the Catholic Church.

 

[Hentenza]

An example of Sacred Tradition is our Liturgy. The books of the Bible are liturgical books, God-breathed texts that are used as readings for the mass.

Right. However the liturgy is just your church’s tradition. You liturgy is not the same as other churches. In fact the word liturgy came about in the 16th century.

Jesus Himself, His Body and Blood, is the "New Covenant" or "New Testament." As the Catholic Church chose the new books of the Bible those books began to be referred to as books of the "New Testament."

The CC did not choose the books of the Bible. Believers through the independent churches recognized the inspired book well before the councils.

All that Jesus taught, passed down through the Apostles, is the Word of God.

No. The Word of God is Jesus (John 1). All churches have the word of God passed down by the same apostles.

Jesus said many many things, and did many things, all is the Word of God. Do you think that which Jesus taught but is not recorded in the Bible is somehow not God's Word?

Yes. How do you know it is? Believing as you do brings in the extra biblical teachings of cults like Mormons and Jws.

While certain things in the Bible are spelled out explicitly, others are not. Our understanding of the Holy Trinity comes much from Sacred Tradition. We believe there is one God, Three Persons. We believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. So too part of our Sacred Tradition is that the deposit of the faith ended with the death of the last Apostles.

Your church is not the sole interpreter of the Bible. All churches interpret the Bible. The understanding of the Trinity is in scripture. Secondly your church and the EO do not agree on from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds from (the filoque) so tradition is still subjective to a particular church.

 

[Valletta]

The understanding of the Trinity is in scripture.

Without Sacred Tradition, if someone picked up the Bible for the first time they would be hard pressed to come up with the same understanding of the Holy Trinity without any outside influence. The Bible supports our understanding, it does not solely provide it. That's why Catholics say Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are so closely linked.

 

[Hentenza]

The truth is that Jerome accepted the judgment of the Catholic Church as did Catholics of his time.

He did not initially as he separated the books until forced to unite them. The prologue of the book of Solomon contains the disclaimer not to use it for doctrinal purposes.

It was not for Jerome to decide, it was for the Catholic Church to decide.

And the CC decided wrong. Not surprised. .

 

[Hentenza]

Without Sacred Tradition, if someone picked up the Bible for the first time they would be hard pressed to come up with the same understanding of the Holy Trinity without any outside influence. The Bible supports our understanding, it does not solely provide it. That's why Catholics say Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are so closely linked.

New Christians are educated by the church so they can understand scripture. The Bible supports my church’s understanding also. In fact, all nicene churches have the same understanding of the Trinity except the CC and the EO of course. And both have “Sacred” tradition.

 

[Valletta]

He did not initially as he separated the books until forced to unite them. The prologue of the book of Solomon contains the disclaimer not to use it for doctrinal purposes.

What kind of force do you think they used on Jerome?

 

[Hentenza]

What kind of force do you think they used on Jerome?

Read the Prologus in Salomonem.

 

[Hentenza]

Merry Christmas!!!!!

 

[fhansen]

The magisterium is composed of fallible humans therefore they cannot, by necessity, be infallible.

Again, that's the point. God ensures that we possess and/or can determine the truth despite normal human fallibilty, weakness, limitations, imperfection, sin, etc. We must have that gift located somewhere or else none of us can have any assurance regarding the supernatural truths involved, much less someone who only has his private interpretations of Scripture alone to go with.

But did not quote from the apocrypha books themselves.

It's actually arguable that the Apocrypha was quoted/referenced/at least alluded to. But if not quoting a book is the criterion, then here's a list of the books not quoted in the NT, even tho all are universally accepted as part of the canon: Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum

 

[Hentenza]

Again, that's the point. God ensures that we possess and/or can determine the truth despite normal human fallibilty, weakness, limitations, imperfection, sin, etc. We must have that gift located somewhere or else none of us can have any assurance regarding the supernatural truths involved, much less someone who only has his private interpretations of Scripture alone to go with.

The magisterium is not inspired either. Most churches can teach the believer proper truth. Again, your church is one of many.

It's actually arguable that the Apocrypha was quoted/referenced/at least alluded to. But if not quoting a book is the criterion, then here's a list of the books not quoted in the NT, even tho all are universally accepted as part of the canon: Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum

You can argue as you wish. The fact that they were not quoted is but one piece of evidence among much more. What the reformation did was return the apocrypha to where it belongs, separate from inspired scripture but profitable to read.

 

[HIM]

Heresy is a proclamation by someone or some group. What is heresy for some is not for others. Therefore you need to define what you consider heresy.

So now you are adding baptism to the salvation formula? Can someone stranded in an island that gleans God from His creation (Rom. 1) has to be baptized to be saved? Or will his faith be sufficient?

I did not add anything. Are you OK? Try Reading my post.

 

[Hentenza]

I did not add anything.

You sure?

Are you OK?

Fine. You?

Try Reading my post.

I did.

 

[fhansen]

The magisterium is not inspired either. Most churches can teach the believer proper truth. Again, your church is one of many.

Ok, proper truth. So are the ones who teach that God wills that man be baptized in order to be saved teaching the proper truth. or are those who teach that He doesn't care about that teaching the proper truth?

 

[fhansen]

You can argue as you wish. The fact that they were not quoted is but one piece of evidence among much more. What the reformation did was return the apocrypha to where it belongs, separate from inspired scripture but profitable to read.

You're only arbitrarily choosing who you prefer to believe on this, which commentator. So why not choose Augustine instead of Jerome? Or why not choose the preponderance of evidence submitted, which shows that the Catholic church included the Apocrypha for at least 1700 years now, with the Eastern churches not much different. The Protestants just did their protesting, with more unnecessary change resulting. The Catholic Church, OTOH, chose rightly in the midst of and despite any controversy.

 

[fhansen]

The magisterium is not inspired either. Most churches can teach the believer proper truth. Again, your church is one of many.

You can argue as you wish. The fact that they were not quoted is but one piece of evidence among much more. What the reformation did was return the apocrypha to where it belongs, separate from inspired scripture but profitable to read.

And Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

[Valletta]

Merry Christmas!

 

[HIM]

You sure?

Fine. You?

I did.

No, I don't think you are.

 

[HIM]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

 

[Hentenza]

Ok, proper truth. So are the ones who teach that God wills that man be baptized in order to be saved teaching the proper truth. or are those who teach that He doesn't care about that teaching the proper truth?

You can argue your interpretation and I can argue mine. We could even argue baby baptism vs believer’s baptism. Simply because you are from the CC does not make your argument correct.