Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes and I could counter with the lack of authority of those meetings and with evidence that church fathers did not see it that way, and the fact that even today there are Catholic churches who do not agree but I think the subject has been covered on both sides now.I think the point he is trying to make which I did as well is that Trent is not when the accepted canon became accepted.
I disagree to a point. Council at Hippo is classified as one of the councils of Carthage, whose canons were ratified in the East at the Synod of Trullo.Agreed. One major issue is that the "katholikin" church is not the Catholic Church with a singular patriarch in Rome, but refers to the unified church prior to the 2 big schisms between Rome, the EO and the OO. So when Catholics go on about how the "Catholic" church determined the Scriptural canon, they overlook the two other churches.
Ummm, not really in the West that I have found any evidence of. The reason why Fathers of Trent defined infallibly the Biblical canon was in direct response the challenges of the Protestant movement. No other reason for that.
The reason for the challenges of the Protestants was due to the world that Protestants evolved out of rise of classical rationalism. From this evolved the desire to translate bibles and convert liturgies into vernacular languages, but also a desire to translate the Bible freshly from the "originals". Thus the desire to discard the Vulgate, and translate Bibles from the Greek and Hebrew. The problem that this created was going back to the original language texts was not the same as going back to the original documents. For example the Masoretic text, which was the Hebrew bible of the Jews, is a latter witness to the OT documents than even the Vulgate and most especially the LXX. They didn't have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls at that time.
Anyway I'm running long on this point, but the main reason outside of a few exceptions such as Luther, why the disputed writings where challenged and eventually taken out of most Protestant Bibles was because those writings are not the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Long story short.
Yes that is exactly where I started this discussion.but the main reason outside of a few exceptions such as Luther, why the disputed writings where challenged and eventually taken out of most Protestant Bibles was because those writings are not the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Long story short.
Well I think your issue on this matter is, understandably, you don’t understand how the Catholic Church works. Synods, even local ones, especially those in Rome have great authority. Also, the very fact that each claims that these are what are handed down, is a catchphrase for being part of Sacred Tradition.Yes and I could counter with the lack of authority of those meetings and with evidence that church fathers did not see it that way, and the fact that even today there are Catholic churches who do not agree but I think the subject has been covered on both sides now.
History deals the cards, so to speak, the Latin church in the west is called Catholic and the Greek (Slavic, Arabic, and others) in the east are called Orthodox; it is true that the Catholic Church is also Orthodox, and no one can justifiably deny that the Orthodox churches in the east are Catholic. But history played out so that the church in the west is called Catholic and that in the east is called Orthodox. I am sure that Protestants are inclined to think of themselves as both orthodox and catholic while being keen not to be identified as Catholic or Orthodox.Xeno, it is more of some Catholics here that Rome and the Roman church determined EVERYTHING. Even when the EO and OO are brought up, the attitude is less than charitable, of "Oh yeah, you guys were along for the ride but really, WE did it all." It is just irritating to the historian in me.
Personally, I'd love a term regarding the church up to Great Schism era that avoids the modern linguistic problem of "Catholic" representing just the Catholic Communion.
Indeed, it is, and it is also where the fundamental issue arises because Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture while the Masoretic Jews thought it was Rabbinic Jews sometime around 500 AD to 800 AD who decided the canon for the Tanakh. Why some Protestants place so much emphasis on the Masoretic tradition in deciding the canon of Christian scripture (at least for the Old Testament) is rather mysterious to me.Yes that is exactly where I started this discussion.
It's my habit to type Catholic Church when I intend the churches in communion with the bishop of Rome and to type catholic when I intend something along the lines of 'according to the whole [body of christians]'. The former is about a specific Church the latter is about what is generally received. Thus, the Nicene Creed is catholic while the Catechism of the Catholic Church appertains to precisely one Church.
Indeed, it is, and it is also where the fundamental issue arises because Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture while the Masoretic Jews thought it was Rabbinic Jews sometime around 500 AD to 800 AD who decided the canon for the Tanakh. Why some Protestants place so much emphasis on the Masoretic tradition in deciding the canon of Christian scripture (at least for the Old Testament) is rather mysterious to me.
I wonder if sales of the NIV would decline among evangelicals if a "Catholic edition" were produced, or an edition such as you suggest?And I agree with Roman Catholics on this point. That is why my favorite Bible versions all contain at least some of the Deuterocanonical books. Indeed one of my main regrets about the NIV is that it lacks them. The second edition, and even the third edition despite its politically correct but erroneous removal of masculine pronouns in favor of gender neutral pronouns, are extremely stylistically elegant, and it would be lovely to see Zondervan release in the same style a translation of the Septuagint and the Ethiopic books, and for that matter a translation of the New Testament apocrypha, not all of which is heretical. For example, the Protoevangelion of James precisely aligns with Eastern Orthodox doctrine on the Nativity of the Theotokos.
I wonder if sales of the NIV would decline among evangelicals if a "Catholic edition" were produced, or an edition such as you suggest?
Yes, that was the choice of saint Jerome; personally, I think he made a mistake when he did that.I doubt it. That said I wouldn’t brand it as a Catholic edition, especially considering that since the Vulgate replaced the Vetus Latina as the main Catholic bible, only Eastern Rite Catholics use the Septuagint for all books in the Old Testament. In the Vulgate, everything except some of the books missing from the NIV and the Psalter used liturgically is translated into Latin from Hebrew.
I don't think you can say that, IMO. Here is why, and this also strikes down some false assumptions made by both Catholics and Protestants on the matter.Yes, that was the choice of saint Jerome; personally, I think he made a mistake when he did that.
It was a mistake for saint Jerome to translate from the Hebrew texts in preference to translating from the LXX. Modern translators tend to favour the Masoretic text for their translation work in the Old Testament. But saint Jerome had - one presumes - more manuscripts in Greek and possibly more in Hebrew to draw from, potentially anyway. And because the New Testament quotes from the LXX frequently he had apostolic example to follow regarding the use of the LXX as source for translating the Old Testament.Mistake when he made what choice? Your phrasing is very unclear.
Indeed, it is, and it is also where the fundamental issue arises because Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture while the Masoretic Jews thought it was Rabbinic Jews sometime around 500 AD to 800 AD who decided the canon for the Tanakh. Why some Protestants place so much emphasis on the Masoretic tradition in deciding the canon of Christian scripture (at least for the Old Testament) is rather mysterious to me.
AND Christians have done just exactly that.Catholics think that it is Christians who ought to decide the canon of Christian scripture
Yes, more precisely Catholic Christians did it around 397 AD.AND Christians have done just exactly that.
Is that Catholic Christians or catholic Christians? just checking!Yes, more precisely Catholic Christians did it around 397 AD.
Most precisely Council of Trent (1545–1563)Yes, more precisely Catholic Christians did it around 397 AD.
Both; at the very least it was before Protestant Christians came into being.Is that Catholic Christians or catholic Christians? just checking!
Been there, done that. Trent ratified Hippo/Carthage/Rome of the 4th century AD.Most precisely Council of Trent (1545–1563)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?