A few questions for Protestants

[Valletta]

I have been to many churches, and find the RCC seriously lacking in teaching Scriptural truths. Sorry.

I know of no religion that is better at teaching Scriptural truths than than the Catholic Church. There are many misinterpretations of John 6, for example, because of superficial examinations without looking in to the original Koine Greek text. From the free online courses at the Saint Paul Center for Biblical theology to courses on EWTN and at Catholic parishes to the excellent homilies. Now the homilies are only a start, time is limited, so you need to grab a Catholic Bible and follow-up on what was said. And the Catholic mass liturgy is almost all Scriptural, not just the Psalms and three readings. Studying the Biblical origin of the liturgy is also of great benefit.

 

[JulieB67]

Further, Jesus gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:22-23)

It's not by "their power" that sins are forgiven. We all know it's the Holy Spirit at work in anyone that repents and it's God that blots out the sin, not the disciples/apostles.

John 20:22 "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit:"

John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

It would be the Holy Spirit at work through the disciples, guiding them to help spread the message but the disciples themselves cannot blot out sin if that's what you're suggesting.


Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am He That blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins."

Only God can forgive sin and only through Christ with the new covenant. We can't take that out of God's hands. He is the heart knower, not man. He's the only one possible that can know if someone has honestly repented. That's impossible for human men.

People can forgive one another but it's only the Father than can blot out sin. And Christ while he walked the earth.

That's why the veil was rent from top to bottom so we don't need a high priest anymore to go to the holy of holies. We can go straight to the throne (Father) through Christ.

The disciples are only spreading that fact through the Holy Spirit. If one believes and repents their sins are forgiven, if one doesn't those sins aren't forgiven.

That's the message across the NT. The disciples don't claim to have that power themselves.

I John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

He includes himself in this. John doesn't state he himself can forgive their sins.

I John 2:1 "My little children, these thing write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

He clearly states if we sin, we have an advocate "with" the Father -Jesus Christ. So it's Father that forgives the sin with Christ as our advocate. John again does not state he himself can forgive their sins.

What you seem to be suggesting is that someone could go straight to them through Christ and have their sins forgiven -cutting out the Father completely. And to me that is dangerous thinking. It's as if you want to put the veil back up and have no need to go to the Father himself.

I Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

Only one mediator between God and men -Christ. There is absolutely no one else we can through to get to the Father -Christ. The disciples themselves are not mediators to God by which sin is forgiven or the one that blots out sin. We can't put them in either place.

Colossians 2:12 "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God Who hath raised Him from the dead."

Colossians 2:13 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


We can't take one misunderstood verse and make a doctrine out of it. Especially when the rest of the Word does not line up with it. We have to take the bible as a whole to not lose context. Especially when it pertains to something like this. What we see with John 20 :22/23 is the Holy Spirit at work. The disciples can assure the believer that their sins will be forgiven upon true repentance but they cannot blot the sin out themselves. Only our Father in Heaven can do that.

Even when they performed miracles Peter was quick to inform them it was not their own power that did those miracles-

Acts 3:12 "And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?"

Acts 3:16 "And His name through faith in His name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know; yea, the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

It's still belief/faith and the power of the Holy Spirit at work.

Acts 3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

It's still the same message but again, only God can know if someone has truly repented and therefore can truly blot out the sin through Christ.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi Jas3. nice to meet you.
And where in the chapter do we see the instructions in how to function? Where are they instructed how to teach? Preach? Baptize?
its about( vss.15-20), a brother sinning against you. However, its not about passing judgement on any, as in power to forgive or not to forgive, as Jesus makes it clear that we must forgive every time. (vs. 35). Jesus also tells us that if the brother is not willing to repent, then we are to treat him as a publican or sinner. (As in ministering all over again to them. Jesus never turned anyone down but kept ministering). It doesn't mean kicking them to the curb.

We believers are ALL the church (ecclesia) filled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:7) who teaches all truth ( Jn. 14:17,26; 16:13,14). John reminded believers that they were taught by the abiding in them, Holy Spirit, and did not need that any man teach them. (I Jn. 2:27)

The church is not a particular building. The kingdom of God is within us. (Lk. 17:21b) We don't go through the Church for Salvation, it is through Christ.



They struggled too. (with their own interpretations.)


They did a lot of twisting, forgery, antedating...so i wouldn't put all my eggs in a basket concerning them.

The scriptures say the Holy Spirit teaches all things concerning Jesus and what he said. We study to show ourselves approved. (II Tim.2:15)
And God tells us how to gain knowledge and understand doctrine in Is. 28:9-13. We search the Word of the Lord precept upon precept, line upon line ,here a little, there a little.

Sure , the Ethiopian was not familiar with the Scriptures, he needed a quick synopsis. And Paul was ministering to Gentiles who did not know God's word either. But the Bereans tested all of what Paul preached by the Scriptures they obviously had.

Gates of hell? The gate of death (Ps.9:13) Sheol. Christ was assuring that even death could not prevail over Him. Those prisoners (saved dead) He would set free. (Ps. 102:20; Is. 42:7; 49:9; 61:1).

All Christ's followers are lead and taught by the Holy Spirit. (I Jn. 2:20,27)

The Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation, Eucharist, co-mediatrix, purgatory,....there is a long laundry list not Scriptural.

We go to church all the time. I go several times a week.

I have been to many churches, and find the RCC seriously lacking in teaching Scriptural truths. Sorry.

The church can be an excellent place to learn more truth about Scriptures as well.

Really? Sounds like your leaning towards it.

Sounds like you have already made your mind up. The RCC is/was not the early church as she claims though. Their proof (the RCC) is that Peter was first bishop in Rome in 44/45 A.D., but the Scriptures do not agree with that assumption.. When Paul arrived in Rome (Acts 28) that after three days he called together the chief of the Jews,(17)but it was not Peter. The Jews had no understanding of the Scriptures about the kingdom of God, nor about the Christian church. (22,23). Peter has obviously never been the bishop over them.
And Paul, writing to the Gentile infant Church in Rome... told them that his goal, was that he wanted them to be established. (Rom. 1:11,13; 15:20)
So, no Peter.

ye shall know them by their fruits. Blessings!

Good day, William

You are attempting to hold the members of the Roman Catholic church to a standard of (authority)that with in that denomination is unable to understand.

They claim for themself all authority over issues of Faith and Morals, they will even for their members define what falls into those 2 categories.
I often refer to it as the "name it claim it" fallacy.



Consider these as a frame work when this issue comes around and dealing with a member of that Church:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.


In Him,

Bill

 

[Fidelibus]

The Bible indeed testifies of the truth but sadly some are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3:7-8

1. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32
2. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24
3. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; John 14:17-19
4. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 1 John 2:20

Again, and with all respect, you did not answer. I asked that you to put more emphasis on the second question than the first. It is a yes or no question, if you were to answer 'yes' I would have asked you to please explain why, a 'no' answer would be asked the same.

For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[JulieB67]

I know of no religion that is better at teaching Scriptural truths than than the Catholic Church.

Is celebrating Easter (resurrection day) a scriptural truth?

because of superficial examinations without looking in to the original Koine Greek text

And yet the CC totally glosses over the original Greek text as far as the word Easter is concerned. As do many other denominations and churches. We know it's Pascha/the Passover. And yet they not only accepted the mistranslation and kept the word they proceeded to make a brand new holy day out of the mistranslation which is not a biblical truth. It's just another tradition that man invented.

Christ became our Passover.

Corinthians 5:7 "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened, For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:"

I'm sure the decision to do this was so they could separate themselves from the Jews/tribes (what was it 325 AD?) that still take passover that weren't Christians but Christ fulfilled that role. It still means one should take part in passover in his name. There's nothing in the scriptures that states otherwise. When we take the Lord's supper in his name it is to remember he's the sacrifice, it's his blood symbolically that's on that door. It's his death that is remembered.

I Corinthians 11:23 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;"

I Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.""

As Christians we certainly can celebrate that he resurrected and defeated death every day but that does not take away the original meaning of Easter which is Pascha and that when we do take the Lord's supper it's to remember that sacrifice/his death.

It's one thing to celebrate something but we can't alter God's very own biblical truth to do so.

No offense honestly, but that's why I've stated in my other posts it would be hard for me to put my faith in a physical church' (any denomination) that does not even uphold even the simplest of truths. I really take Christ's words to heart that men's traditions can make void the word of God. And this is just one example of not only upholding a truth but covering up a truth imo.

 

[Valletta]

Is celebrating Easter (resurrection day) a scriptural truth?


And yet the CC totally glosses over the original Greek text as far as the word Easter is concerned. As do many other denominations and churches. We know it's Pascha/the Passover. And yet they not only accepted the mistranslation and kept the word they proceeded to make a brand new holy day out of the mistranslation which is not a biblical truth. It's just another tradition that man invented.

Christ became our Passover.

Corinthians 5:7 "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened, For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:"

I'm sure the decision to do this was so they could separate themselves from the Jews/tribes (what was it 325 AD?) that still take passover that weren't Christians but Christ fulfilled that role. It still means one should take part in passover in his name. There's nothing in the scriptures that states otherwise. When we take the Lord's supper in his name it is to remember he's the sacrifice, it's his blood symbolically that's on that door. It's his death that is remembered.

I Corinthians 11:23 "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;"

I Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.""

As Christians we certainly can celebrate that he resurrected and defeated death every day but that does not take away the original meaning of Easter which is Pascha and that when we do take the Lord's supper it's to remember that sacrifice/his death.

It's one thing to celebrate something but we can't alter God's very own biblical truth to do so.

No offense honestly, but that's why I've stated in my other posts it would be hard for me to put my faith in a physical church' (any denomination) that does not even uphold even the simplest of truths. I really take Christ's words to heart that men's traditions can make void the word of God. And this is just one example of not only upholding a truth but covering up a truth imo.

The Catholic Church was there before one word of the New Testament was written. Jesus Himself, His very Body and Blood, is our "New Covenant" or "New Testament." As the Catholic Church was in the process of choosing new books for the Bible those books began to be referred to as "books of the New Testament." Your claim about "symbolically" is not in the Bible, in fact it is contradicted by the words of Jesus in John 6. The Catholic Church is both in Heaven and on Earth, in fact I often think of the Church in Heaven first when I hear the words "Catholic Church." Never put your traditions ahead of the Word of God.

 

[JulieB67]

Your claim about "symbolically" is not in the Bible

Neither is Easter in the original text. And I'm talking about in regards to the Passover. There is no door today but we know it was the blood on the door that represented who would be "passed over". I know it's Christ's blood today that still symbolizes that meaning of the Passover. That he is our one atonement for all time.

And when we do observe the passover meal we show "his death". Yes, he is the bread of life but the Passover is in observance of his death/sacrifice.

I Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.

The Catholic Church was there before one word of the New Testament was written

I certainly believe the Church was established, yes.

As the Catholic Church was in the process of choosing new books for the Bible those books began to be referred to as "books of the New Testament.

But even doing so chose books for their own bible that does not agree/has errors with the canon of the rest of the Bible -books that they chose. So this to me is not proof of anything other than the fact that the CC did err in some regard. They got part of it right and part of it wrong -just like many churches today. The church is supposed to uphold the truth, not change or add to it.

" Never put your traditions ahead of the Word of God.

This I do agree with. That's been my entire point.

 

[jas3]

It's not by "their power" that sins are forgiven. We all know it's the Holy Spirit at work in anyone that repents and it's God that blots out the sin, not the disciples/apostles.

I didn't say "their power," it ultimately is God's power.

It would be the Holy Spirit at work through the disciples, guiding them to help spread the message but the disciples themselves cannot blot out sin if that's what you're suggesting.

I agree that it is the Holy Spirit at work through the Apostles.

The disciples are only spreading that fact through the Holy Spirit. If one believes and repents their sins are forgiven, if one doesn't those sins aren't forgiven.

They are not "only spreading that fact," Jesus tells them "if you forgive the sins of any" and "if you retain the sins of any."

What you seem to be suggesting is that someone could go straight to them through Christ and have their sins forgiven -cutting out the Father completely. And to me that is dangerous thinking. It's as if you want to put the veil back up and have no need to go to the Father himself.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that God arranged for there to be earthly ministers with real authority, in recognition of the fact that we are not purely spiritual beings, but a combination of spiritual and material.

This is not a misunderstanding of one verse; see also Matt. 16:19 and 18:18, "whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

 

[JulieB67]

I didn't say "their power," it ultimately is God's power.

Ok then, I misunderstood your meaning. Because ultimately yes, it's only God that can blot out sin, not man.

 

[epostle]

Is celebrating Easter (resurrection day) a scriptural truth?

The Resurrection is a scriptural and historical truth, it is celebrated every day at every Mass, and the Resurrection is the focus on Easter Sunday.

And yet the CC totally glosses over the original Greek text as far as the word Easter is concerned.

Please provide a scholarly source for this. The CC has not "totally glosses over the original Greek".

Some people have inferred that “Easter” is the English derivation of the Greek “Astarte,” but there is no linguistic or historical basis for this. In addition, the English word Easter is said to have derived from an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess named Eostre. This theory was based on an incorrect conclusion by St. Bede the Venerable about the etymological origins of the English month that coincides with spring and the celebration of Easter, “Eosturmonath.” But, as Anthony McRoy, a fellow of the British Society for Middle East Studies, notes, there is no historical basis for this derivation. He notes that St. Bede himself said that his conclusion was based on his interpretation rather than a generally held position or proven fact.
Also, there is no doubt that the focus of Easter for St. Bede and English Christians in general, was and is Jesus, the Passover Lamb who died on our behalf and rose from the dead.
Indeed, in most European countries, the name for Easter derives from the Greek word Pascha, which itself is derived from the Hebrew Pesach, i.e., the word “Passover.” Thus, the term “paschal sacrifice” refers to Jesus’ one time sacrifice, and “paschal candle” is another name for the Easter candle.
So where did the English get their word for the celebration of Christ’s Resurrection? McRoy notes there are two main theories, both of which are plausible:

“One theory for the origin of the name is that the Latin phrase in albis (‘in white’), which Christians used in reference to Easter week, found its way into Old High German as eostarum, or ‘dawn.'” The other is that “Eosturmonath simply meant ‘the month of opening,’ which is comparable to the meaning of ‘April’ in Latin. The names of both the Saxon and Latin months (which are calendrically similar) were related to spring, the season when the buds open.”

In either case, the claim that the English celebration is rooted in pagan goddess worship simply has no historical basis, even if some anti-Catholic polemicists have gotten a good deal of mileage out of it.

As do many other denominations and churches. We know it's Pascha/the Passover.

So do we.

And yet they not only accepted the mistranslation and kept the word they proceeded to make a brand new holy day out of the mistranslation which is not a biblical truth. It's just another tradition that man invented.

Then provide your "correct" translation. Again, the Resurrection is a biblical truth. It is celebrated on Easter Sunday.

 

[epostle]

Jesus rose from the dead on the first Sunday following the feast of Passover. (Technically, he may have risen Saturday night, but that still counts as Sunday on the Jewish reckoning, which begins each day at sunset instead of at midnight.)

The date of Passover is a complicated thing. Theoretically, the date should be the 14th of the Jewish month of Nisan, and it should correspond to a full moon (the Jewish calendar being partly lunar). In practice, it didn’t always work out that way. The month-moon cycles got out of synch, and sometimes feasts would be held on a “liturgical” full moon even when it was not an astronomical full moon. As a result, rabbis periodically had to announce when Passover would be celebrated.

Christians didn’t like being dependent on the pronouncements of rabbis for how to celebrate Christian feasts, so they came up with another way of determining the date. They decided that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after (never on) the Paschal full moon.

Theoretically, the Paschal full moon is the first full moon occurring on or after the spring equinox. However, this day can be reckoned in different ways. One way is by looking at the sky, which yields the astronomical spring equinox. But since this shifts from year to year, most people follow the calendrical spring equinox, which is reckoned as March 21.
On the Gregorian calendar (the one that we use), Easter is the first Sunday after the Paschal full moon, which is the first full moon on or after March 21. Easter thus always falls between March 22 and April 25.

 

[timothyu]

Double Sabbath. Last Supper on Wednesday. Jesus died on a Thursday (the day of the Passover lamb sacrifice) Friday was Passover and a meal Jesus missed eating with His Apostles and family as He said He would, and Saturday the regular Sabbath.

 

[JulieB67]

Easter derives from the Greek word Pascha,

It is the word Pascha. Easter is not derived from it. It is mistranslated.


Acts 12:4 "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Easter in this verse translated back to the Greek is Pascha which is the Passover.

The Resurrection is a scriptural and historical truth,

Of course it is but that's not my point. I'm talking about Easter having no place in the Bible. It's the Passover. There's no such thing as Easter/Resurrection day in the Bible.

The CC has not "totally glosses over the original Greek

Yes, they and many churches have. The word is Pascha/The passover. It's easy to check out.

Then provide your "correct" translation. Again, the Resurrection is a biblical truth. It is celebrated on Easter Sunday.

I did.

. They decided that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after (never on) the Paschal full moon.

Exactly (they decided) It's a tradition, not a scriptural truth. There is no command in the NT to celebrate Easter/Resurrection Day.

But we are given instruction on how to take the meal and it is to show the Lord's death until he returns.

 

[keepitsimple144]

Again, and with all respect, you did not answer. I asked that you to put more emphasis on the second question than the first. It is a yes or no question, if you were to answer 'yes' I would have asked you to please explain why, a 'no' answer would be asked the same.

For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"

He (Jesus Christ) who was revealed in the flesh, Was justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:15-16

Lift up your heads, you gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. Ps 24:7

Lord, I love the house where you live, the place where your glory dwells. Ps 26:8

And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. Isa 40:5

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; Dan 7:14

 

[Valletta]

It is the word Pascha. Easter is not derived from it. It is mistranslated.


Acts 12:4 "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Easter in this verse translated back to the Greek is Pascha which is the Passover.


Of course it is but that's not my point. I'm talking about Easter having no place in the Bible. It's the Passover. There's no such thing as Easter/Resurrection day in the Bible.

Yes, they and many churches have. The word is Pascha/The passover. It's easy to check out.

I did.

Exactly (they decided) It's a tradition, not a scriptural truth. There is no command in the NT to celebrate Easter/Resurrection Day.

But we are given instruction on how to take the meal and it is to show the Lord's death until he returns.

As I pointed out, the Catholic Church was in existence before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church is not nor has ever claimed to be Bible-only, that belief became popular well over a thousand years later. Jesus did not leave us a rule book spelling out every detail. You bring up feast days, particularly Easter, there is nothing in the Bible spelling out exactly which feast days and when Christians are to celebrate. The Church decided that. There are a number of Protestant traditions. For example, Protestants took the Catholic canon of Bible books that had been in place since the 300s, dropped seven of the books chosen, but as part of Protestant tradition kept the very same order the Catholic Church had decided upon over a thousand years before. That canon, decided upon by men, is one of your traditions. Many Protestants have their own tradition as to the numbering and what is included in each of the Ten Commandments. The Bible tells us there are ten but not how to group the ten. These are some Protestant traditions, not scriptural truth.

 

[BBAS 64]

As I pointed out, the Catholic Church was in existence before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church is not nor has ever claimed to be Bible-only, that belief became popular well over a thousand years later. Jesus did not leave us a rule book spelling out every detail. You bring up feast days, particularly Easter, there is nothing in the Bible spelling out exactly which feast days and when Christians are to celebrate. The Church decided that. There are a number of Protestant traditions. For example, Protestants took the Catholic canon of Bible books that had been in place since the 300s, dropped seven of the books chosen, but as part of Protestant tradition kept the very same order the Catholic Church had decided upon over a thousand years before. That canon, decided upon by men, is one of your traditions. Many Protestants have their own tradition as to the numbering and what is included in each of the Ten Commandments. The Bible tells us there are ten but not how to group the ten. These are some Protestant traditions, not scriptural truth.

Good day, Valletta

That is very nice Historical revision you have erected here.

Lets get to the primary evidence and how your denomination handled the question of it's Canon. Seeing I am not a member it has little bearing on me but lets look at the primary facts of that time.

Cardinal Cajetan is known for his disputations with Martin Luther. Wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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


https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/vht91q

Does the Church agree with Cajetan on the apocryphal books?



No. At the Council of Trent, Seripando wanted the list of the canonical books which had been given by Florence to be explained by Cajetan's distinction between the "canon of faith" and the "canon of morals," but most of the Fathers thought a question that had already been disputed between Augustine and Jerome should be allowed to remain open, and Trent repeated the Florentine list without making any distinctions within the canon. A very few Catholic authors after Trent still held that the deuterocanonical books are authoritative as moral examples and not in establishing dogma, but after the definition of Vatican I that each of the books listed by Trent is divinely inspired, and St Pius X's condemnation in Lamentabili sane of the Modernist doctrine that inspiration may have had different effects in different books so that not every part of Scripture was guarded against every error, this question must now be considered closed.

The bigger question is did the Roman Denomination Pre Trent agree with Cajetan.

There is no writing any where that the Bishop of Rome ( to whom his work was dedicated) had an issue with what Cajetan wrote.

The disputation between Jerome and Augustine is a great read... Historically (IMHO) Jerome carried the day up until the error of Trent on the issue.

How do I come to the view that Jerome carried the day:

in His preface in the Latin Vulgate ( again dedicated to a bishop of Rome) he writes the view of the church. Again we have none including that bishop having an issue.

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

I would suggest based on the writings we have from the time of Jerome to the time of Cajetan wee see many writings on the issue parroting what Jerome wrote in one form or another. Seeing Jerome was the supreme Hebrew scholar of his day the writings I refer to often like the OT Cannon to the number of Hebrew letters

Such as John of Damascus

... Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven.

In Him,

Bill

 

[tampasteve]

I know of no religion that is better at teaching Scriptural truths than than the Catholic Church. There are many misinterpretations of John 6, for example, because of superficial examinations without looking in to the original Koine Greek text. From the free online courses at the Saint Paul Center for Biblical theology to courses on EWTN and at Catholic parishes to the excellent homilies. Now the homilies are only a start, time is limited, so you need to grab a Catholic Bible and follow-up on what was said. And the Catholic mass liturgy is almost all Scriptural, not just the Psalms and three readings. Studying the Biblical origin of the liturgy is also of great benefit.

I am not a practicing Catholic, but I broadly agree with this. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Mass can see it is essentially all based on one scripture or another. Further, anyone at Mass will probably hear more scripture read on Sunday than in most Evangelical denominations, primarily in the readings, but also in the sung psalms and prayers. The clear outliers in Protestant services would be the churches that still have a high liturgy and a similar amount of readings and prayers.

 

[Valletta]

Good day, Valletta

That is very nice Historical revision you have erected here.

Lets get to the primary evidence and how your denomination handled the question of it's Canon. Seeing I am not a member it has little bearing on me but lets look at the primary facts of that time.

Cardinal Cajetan is known for his disputations with Martin Luther. Wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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


https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/vht91q

Does the Church agree with Cajetan on the apocryphal books?



No. At the Council of Trent, Seripando wanted the list of the canonical books which had been given by Florence to be explained by Cajetan's distinction between the "canon of faith" and the "canon of morals," but most of the Fathers thought a question that had already been disputed between Augustine and Jerome should be allowed to remain open, and Trent repeated the Florentine list without making any distinctions within the canon. A very few Catholic authors after Trent still held that the deuterocanonical books are authoritative as moral examples and not in establishing dogma, but after the definition of Vatican I that each of the books listed by Trent is divinely inspired, and St Pius X's condemnation in Lamentabili sane of the Modernist doctrine that inspiration may have had different effects in different books so that not every part of Scripture was guarded against every error, this question must now be considered closed.

The bigger question is did the Roman Denomination Pre Trent agree with Cajetan.

There is no writing any where that the Bishop of Rome ( to whom his work was dedicated) had an issue with what Cajetan wrote.

The disputation between Jerome and Augustine is a great read... Historically (IMHO) Jerome carried the day up until the error of Trent on the issue.

How do I come to the view that Jerome carried the day:

in His preface in the Latin Vulgate ( again dedicated to a bishop of Rome) he writes the view of the church. Again we have none including that bishop having an issue.

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

I would suggest based on the writings we have from the time of Jerome to the time of Cajetan wee see many writings on the issue parroting what Jerome wrote in one form or another. Seeing Jerome was the supreme Hebrew scholar of his day the writings I refer to often like the OT Cannon to the number of Hebrew letters

Such as John of Damascus

... Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven.

In Him,

Bill

I'm not a member of any denomination, I'm a Catholic. My statement was 100% historically accurate. The Catholic Church finalized the canon in the late 300s and the same 73 books, in the same order, comprise the Bible today. All apocryphal text was rejected in the 300s.

 

[timothyu]

I'm not a member of any denomination, I'm a Catholic.

So not a member of the original Nazarene church but grown out of it? Denomination.

 

[epostle]

Good day, Valletta

That is very nice Historical revision you have erected here.

Lets get to the primary evidence and how your denomination handled the question of it's Canon. Seeing I am not a member it has little bearing on me but lets look at the primary facts of that time.

Referring to the Catholic Church as a denomination is a revisionism in itself. Sincere seekers want the truth of the development of the canon of Scripture, not fairy tales.

Cardinal Cajetan is known for his disputations with Martin Luther. Wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Cardinal Cajetan can say whatever he wants, it doesn't change the fact that the canon of Scripture was settled by the CC after centuries of debate and discernment. "Apocrypha" includes uninspired books along with inspired books. The other concept restricts it to mean only the Deuterocanonical Books (rejected by non-Catholic Christians) which is a revised definition of the term "Apocrypha".

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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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


https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/vht91q

Does the Church agree with Cajetan on the apocryphal books?

The CC doesn't have to agree with Cajetan, Cajetan has to agree with the Church, which he does. There is nothing in this quote that disproves the Deuterocanonical Books as Scripture.

No. At the Council of Trent, Seripando wanted the list of the canonical books which had been given by Florence to be explained by Cajetan's distinction between the "canon of faith" and the "canon of morals," but most of the Fathers thought a question that had already been disputed between Augustine and Jerome should be allowed to remain open, and Trent repeated the Florentine list without making any distinctions within the canon. A very few Catholic authors after Trent still held that the deuterocanonical books are authoritative as moral examples and not in establishing dogma, but after the definition of Vatican I that each of the books listed by Trent is divinely inspired, and St Pius X's condemnation in Lamentabili sane of the Modernist doctrine that inspiration may have had different effects in different books so that not every part of Scripture was guarded against every error, this question must now be considered closed.

The bigger question is did the Roman Denomination Pre Trent agree with Cajetan.

Development of Doctrine doesn't go backwards.

There is no writing any where that the Bishop of Rome ( to whom his work was dedicated) had an issue with what Cajetan wrote.

The disputation between Jerome and Augustine is a great read... Historically (IMHO) Jerome carried the day up until the error of Trent on the issue.

First you have to prove Trent had errors re: the Canon of Scripture by proving the canon was wrong from the beginning. This you cannot do.

How do I come to the view that Jerome carried the day:

in His preface in the Latin Vulgate ( again dedicated to a bishop of Rome) he writes the view of the church. Again we have none including that bishop having an issue.

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

I would suggest based on the writings we have from the time of Jerome to the time of Cajetan wee see many writings on the issue parroting what Jerome wrote in one form or another. Seeing Jerome was the supreme Hebrew scholar of his day the writings I refer to often like the OT Cannon to the number of Hebrew letters

Such as John of Damascus

... Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven.

In Him,

Bill

Jerome’s attitude is ambiguous and may have changed over time. Furthermore, no one Church Father can settle the canon.

While learning to translate Hebrew, Jerome was in contact with non- Christian Jews who were intellectual descendants of the Pharisees and therefore rejected the deuterocanonicals (see Days 255 and 257). Under this influence, he at least for a time rejected their canonicity.

This is indicated in the prologues to the Vulgate, where he says certain books are non-canonical (e.g., he says this of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit in the prologue to Kings). In other cases, he says a book is not read among Hebrew-speaking Jews but does not clearly state his own view (e.g., he says this of Baruch in the prologue to Jeremiah).

Nevertheless, Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church. In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request” to translate it. This is interesting because we have only partial records of First Nicaea, and we don’t otherwise know what this ecumenical council said concerning the canon.

Jerome’s deference to Church authority was also illustrated when he later defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, writing: “What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the church- es?” (Against Rufinus 2:33). In the same place he stated that what he said concerning Daniel in his prologues was what non-Christian Jews said but was not his own view. This may indicate Jerome changed his mind or that his reporting of Jewish views may not indicate his own view.

Jerome’s deference to the Church is correct. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a whole. No one Church Father, however prominent, can settle the canon of Scripture, and on this subject Jerome was in the minority (see Day 273).
source