Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

That decision was not made until The Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent.

That is not so, the council of "COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE" in the years 1431-1439, provided a complete canon list for Eastern Churches seeking union with Rome. That list was acknowledged as coming from the local councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

 

[disciple Clint]

Orthodoxy has a number of Jurisdictions and some of them have differing canon lists for the canonical scriptures. Your posts ought to be specific about which jurisdiction you intend. As for the Catholic Church, its answer is that there are 73 canonical books in the holy scriptures.

I believe in your earlier post you defined the Catholic Church as including all rites.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I believe in your earlier post you defined the Catholic Church as including all rites.

I said that the Catholic Church has 24 rites, all of which are in communion with Rome.

 

[disciple Clint]

I did see it and noticed that it is the production of an Evangelical Ministry called "Just for Catholics". I make it a practise not to derive my doctrine from Evangelical 'evangelism of Catholic" web sites.

If that is your only objection I can provide other sources including Catholic sources.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If that is your only objection I can provide other sources including Catholic sources.

I'd rather that your posts deal with facts and truth than the opinion of either a saint or an evangelical web site.

 

[disciple Clint]

That is not so, the council of "COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE" in the years 1431-1439, provided a complete canon list for Eastern Churches seeking union with Rome. That list was acknowledged as coming from the local councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

That seems to be arguing with your previous post where you indicated that all Catholic Churches have the same canon and if in fact the canon was established at that time why was it necessary for it to be established at Trent, your arguments seem to be in conflict. Can you provided any evidence that the canon was officially established prior to Trent?

 

[disciple Clint]

I said that the Catholic Church has 24 rites, all of which are in communion with Rome.

OK what are those 24 rites

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That seems to be arguing with your previous post where you indicated that all Catholic Churches have the same canon and if in fact the canon was established at that time why was it necessary for it to be established at Trent, your arguments seem to be in conflict. Can you provided any evidence that the canon was officially established prior to Trent?

The canon is restated in Vatican II, not because such is a necessity due to disputes but because such is useful for the document in which the canon is listed; Dei Verbum, which is the council's teaching regarding scripture. So, Trent restates the canon, not because Catholics were doubting it but because Protestantism had rejected it and the Catholic Church wished to reiterate its own teaching for the sake of the faithful and for the sake of Protestants who were teaching error including error about the extent of the canon of scripture.

 

[disciple Clint]

I'd rather that your posts deal with facts and truth than the opinion of either a saint or an evangelical web site.

All of my post are subject to contradictory evidence if you have any please post it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

OK what are those 24 rites

Use google to search it out. It is readily available.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All of my post are subject to contradictory evidence if you have any please post it.

You are mistaken if you believe that my posts are intended to convince you to change your views.

 

[disciple Clint]

The canon is restated in Vatican II, not because such is a necessity due to disputes but because such is useful for the document in which the canon is listed; Dei Verbum, which is the council's teaching regarding scripture. So, Trent restates the canon, not because Catholics were doubting it but because Protestantism had rejected it and the Catholic Church wished to reiterate its own teaching for the sake of the faithful and for the sake of Protestants who were teaching error including error about the extent of the canon of scripture.

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546.
This is an extensive article from the Catholic side, I believe it confirms my posts to date.
Canon of the Holy Scriptures

 

[disciple Clint]

You are mistaken if you believe that my posts are intended to convince you to change your views.

I assume we are having an academic discussion and evidence should be included. If you are simply stating your opinion then no evidence is required.

 

[disciple Clint]

Use google to search it out. It is readily available.

No my question is related to your post, you stated that there are 24 which ones were you considering when you made your post?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546.
This is an extensive article from the Catholic side, I believe it confirms my posts to date.
Canon of the Holy Scriptures

That is not so, Dei Verbum is quite "extensive"

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfilment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

CHAPTER III

SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS DIVINE INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION

11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

20. Besides the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament also contains the epistles of St. Paul and other apostolic writings, composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which, according to the wise plan of God, those matters which concern Christ the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more fully stated, the saving power of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the Church and its marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold.

For the Lord Jesus was with His apostles as He had promised (see Matt. 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).
​

There are a good number of lists of the canon of scripture in Catholic Church councils and their documents.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No my question is related to your post, you stated that there are 24 which ones were you considering when you made your post?

The 24 that are explicitly mentioned in the documents of the Catholic Church.

see The Rites of the Catholic Church (catholicnewsagency.com)
​

 

[Erose]

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).


The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.
St Jerome and the Canon

.

This is a funny post with a lot of false information.

To start off with St. Jerome was a priest who was commissioned by Pope St. Damasus to revise at least the Gospels and maybe the whole NT, but that information is lost. Later St. Jerome at the request of many of his friends translated most of the writings of the OT over his lifespan. That being said St. Jerome had no authority whatsoever to decide the Catholic Canon. None. He had his opinions yes; but his opinions had no authority.

Concerning the writings that are currently found in the OT of the Catholic bible. Pope St. Damasus at the Synod of Rome confirmed our biblical canon. The synod of Hippo presided over by St. Augustine confirmed this canon. Pope St. Innocent in 405 again confirmed it. The acceptance the Catholic canon was required by the Council of Florence in the 14th century for the some of the Coptic Christians to enter full communion with the Catholic Church.

At the council of Trent due to the Protestant rejection of the full Christian bible canon, the fathers of that council felt the need to define what books are included in the Christian Bible. The same canon read in the Latin Church for the 15 centuries.

The official position of the Catholic Church on all the books of the OT were that they were equally inspired.

Now we do have certain books that were considered good for reading but not inspired. These were normally included in many Latin Vulgates, which included the Prayer of Manasseh, 3rd and 4th Esdras, and some even had the letter of St. Paul to Loadicea.

Now the Eastern Church does have a more complex understanding of Canonicity, which I do find interesting. You can see this here: Classification of the books of the Holy Bible

 

[Erose]

not at all, that is exactly what happened in The Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent,

Adding to the fantastical argument it seems?

 

[Erose]

Maybe you did not see this: The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.
St Jerome and the Canon

This is NOT true. You are reading fiction.

 

[JSRG]

Maybe you did not see this: The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books.
St Jerome and the Canon

Just because a website makes a claim doesn't make it automatically true. Doubly so when it does so with such scant proof (pointing to Jerome and an isolated statement of a single cardinal is not proof that "the practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome"). Triply so when it's a polemic, as is the case in your link.

Speaking of that cardinal in question, it sends up a major red flag about the article. Here is the quote and citation it offers:

""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." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)"

I was curious so I looked it up, making absolutely certain I was looking at the edition cited (it was printed in 1849, by Cambridge, and was "Translated and Edited for the Parker Society" so this is a match). This quote is not found on page 424. It is found on page 48. This leaves us with two possibilities.

The first, and more charitable explanation, is that it was a typo. However, this seems unlikely. If it said 47 or 49 or 58 or even 408 I could see it, but how does one, even via typos, get from 48 to 424?

The second, and in my view more likely explanation, is that they just copied the citation from someone else without checking it. This is highly problematic. For it shows a considerable lack of research if they grabbed a citation and quoted it without any checking at all. Someone might say that the quote is found in the work, but that's besides the point--to offer up a quote and citation that you have not confirmed is a mark of someone who has not done proper research and is just grabbing what they saw other people say without verifying them to be sure. Certainly, someone who is unwilling or unable to check on their own citations is not someone I would trust to tell me what "the practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation" was.

But, someone might say that, even if the page is not trustworthy, what of the specific quote offered? Is it genuine? This at least seems to be accurate, and it's a rather popular one for Protestants to throw around. However, the statement of one cardinal does not "the practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation" make. How the deuterocanonical books were viewed throughout history is much more complicated than that.