protestant birth

[Tertiumquid]

There are no official teaching of the Catholic Church about the Canon until Trent, so there is no way that either of us can definitively prove our point. However, in another thread, I listed several early church authorities which speak specifically to the "edification and devotion" but not to the "development of dogma":
http://www.christianforums.com/t1527743-why-did-protestants-take-the-deuterocanonicals-out-of-the-bible.html
The list includes Ximenez, a 16th century Grand inquisitor; Cajetan, Luther's opposor; Jerome, etc.Constance

Hi Constance,

A book that may interest you: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947).

Jedin (a Roman Catholic) was considered an expert on Trent. I have heroes at the Council of Trent. One particular was Cardinal Seripando and his view on the canon. Jedin explains,

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; 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.”

source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271

“For the last time (Seripando) expressed his doubts (to the Council of Trent) about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 278.

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against “tradition” as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. 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.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 281-282.

Regards,
James Swan
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

 

[Debi1967]

http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htmhttp://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

Don't you think using sources that you have researched and then included into your own work Mr Swan is highly prejudicial to this conversation considering your reputation as being someone that is opposed to Catholicism and therefore sways his Apologetics towards those avenues....

Do you not think that it would be better to also include not only the quote but also the link so that the quote used may be seen in it's entirety as well?

Pax Christi
Debi

PS... Mr Swan you did not think that thereselittleflower and I did not do our homework did you?

 

[constance]

Hi Tertiumquid,

Thanks for the cite, I may pick up a copy for my husband (He's the church history PhD(almost!), I just do it for fun).

Constance vbmenu_register("postmenu_16232960", true);

 

[Debi1967]

There are no official teaching of the Catholic Church about the Canon until Trent, so there is no way that either of us can definitively prove our point.

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle." Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm
I want you to notice that it was established nearly 1200 years early in the Council of Rome which still holds today ....

other quotes from our EARLIER COUNCILS of which it was definitely clear as to what the Canon was

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John." Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[Debi1967]

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[Debi1967]

It seems we have a bit of a problem her ladies and gentlemen when you are telling me that the Canon was not established until more than 1000 years after this .... Seems several councils did this well before ......


It had never been contested before .............. that is the difference

 

[constance]

It seems we have a bit of a problem her ladies and gentlemen when you are telling me that the Canon was not established until more than 1000 years after this .... Seems several councils did this well before ......


It had never been contested before .............. that is the difference

You quoted the councils of Hippo and Carthage. These are regional councils.
You quoted Augustine. He is one Doctor of the Church.

Neither has the authority to make a definitive statement about any Church Teaching.

The status of the deuterocanonical books was actively debated up to and at Trent. It's been pointed out that Cajetan, Ximenez, and Seripando believed that the deuterocanon was for edification only. Cajetan and Ximenez were both Cardinals. Cajetan is recognized as a saint. These people would obviously not go against the established teaching of the Catholic Church, so it's pretty clear that it wasn't established until it was defined - at Trent.

Constance

 

[Diane_Windsor]

You quoted the councils of Hippo and Carthage. These are regional councils. You quoted Augustine. He is one Doctor of the Church.

Neither has the authority to make a definitive statement about any Church Teaching.

The status of the deuterocanonical books was actively debated up to and at Trent. It's been pointed out that Cajetan, Ximenez, and Seripando believed that the deuterocanon was for edification only. Cajetan and Ximenez were both Cardinals. Cajetan is recognized as a saint. These people would obviously not go against the established teaching of the Catholic Church, so it's pretty clear that it wasn't established until it was defined - at Trent.

Constance

Great post!

 

[Debi1967]

Great post!

You quoted that we had not excepted the canon and we had .... those prior Councils still hold .... Where do you get the idea that a Pope's Council does not hold over the whole Church ? .......

The first Council may have been what you call regional but it was signed by a Pope this holds throughout the Church.... Where do you get that even back then this ws not true?

It was..... An Arch Bishop hold a region still and he still has meetings and councils as well so you are saying that the Church would make Doctrine for only one part of Church and then not another? Now that makes no sense whatsoever. The council were named back that usually for where they took place just like the Council AT Trent, this did not mean that all of the Churches and their representatives did not attend

 

[Debi1967]

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

I see you did not address this .... the Church recognizes those Councils as standing Councils that apply to the whole of the Church and that applied to the whole of the Church ....

 

[constance]

You quoted that we had not excepted the canon and we had .... those prior Councils still hold .... Where do you get the idea that a Pope's Council does not hold over the whole Church ? .......

The first Council may have been what you call regional but it was signed by a Pope this holds throughout the Church.... Where do you get that even back then this ws not true?

It was..... An Arch Bishop hold a region still and he still has meetings and councils as well

There is a difference between a regional council and an ecumenical (that is, worldwide) council. The council of Carthage was a regional council, and its decisions were binding only on Christians in the Roman province of Africa. The acts of the Council of Carthage were not signed by a Pope; in fact, after listing the canon of Scripture, the Council of Carthage added the note: "But let Church beyond sea be consulted about confirming this canon." The bishops understood that they were making a decision that affected the faith of the worldwide church AND that they didn't have the authority to make that decision on their own.

so you are saying that the Church would make Doctrine for only one part of Church and then not another? Now that makes no sense whatsoever. The council were named back that usually for where they took place just like the Council AT Trent, this did not mean that all of the Churches and their representatives did not attend

Not that it's directly relevant to this point, but on many issues bishops were, and are, allowed to make decisions for the people of their diocese. In the early church, each bishop had the right to decide which saints would be venerated in his diocese. Bishops actually decided all sorts of matters of doctrine--and back then, they had to, since it wasn't possible for papal officials to keep track of everything when they had to travel by horse or sailboat. And when they tried to handle everything, it didn't work so well...one of the reasons that Rome became "corrupt" in the late Middle Ages was simply that the papal officials were overworked and underpaid. But that's probably a topic for another time. The point is that bishops do determine some doctrines for their dioceses. Councils met when an issue needed to be addressed by many bishops, and an ecumenical council met when a problem got so out of hand that it had to be addressed by the whole Church.

Even today, bishops have substantial latitude in determining what goes on in their dioceses--maybe you remember the bishop in Nebraska (Lincoln, I think?) who excommunicated members of Call to Action. A Call to Action member who lived in Milwaukee could take communion without a problem, but if he moved to that diocese, he'd be barred from communion. This is a doctrinal position that only applies to that one diocese.

Constance

 

[Debi1967]

The canon of recognized Scripture is a little bit different and although that Bishop did that it still must be within the confines of our accepted teachings.....

The councils you quote are part of the NINETEEN
the Church recognizes those Councils as standing Councils that apply to the whole of the Church and that applied to the whole of the Church ....

 

[Debi1967]

There is a difference between a regional council and an ecumenical (that is, worldwide) council. The council of Carthage was a regional council, and its decisions were binding only on Christians in the Roman province of Africa. The acts of the Council of Carthage were not signed by a Pope; in fact, after listing the canon of Scripture, the Council of Carthage added the note: "But let Church beyond sea be consulted about confirming this canon." The bishops understood that they were making a decision that affected the faith of the worldwide church AND that they didn't have the authority to make that decision on their own.

You are talking of one Council but you have forgotten the Council at Rome which was prior and which was signed by a Pope .... What you think is that because the Eastern Orthodox say that do not now except that Council that it must be a regional Council only ... At the time they did except this Council and they were present at it ....

 

[Debi1967]

Dogmatic Teaching merely means that it may never again be disputed! It is not an establishment of NEW Doctrine. The Doctrine must already exist in order for it to then be made Dogmatic. The Doctrine of the Canon already existed for over one thousand years, all that the Council of Trent did was make it so that we could no longer debate the canon used by the Catholic Church.

The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.) A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied in February of 405 A.D. with a letter (Consulenti Tibi) confirming and reaffirming the canon given at Hippo and Carthage. The Ecumenical Council of Florence again affirmed the list of inspired books in 1442 A.D., about 100 years before the Council of Trent. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" by Pope Eugenius IV lists the inspired books, and according to the common teaching of theologians, these documents are infallible states of doctrine. Since there was no urgent challenge or compelling reason why it should, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did not dogmatically pass on the canonicity of the inspired books.

The decrees of the local or regional church councils (Synods) of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the "transmarine church" (Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official church teachings by official church councils. Although these councils were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes. After the Popes approved the decrees, they became part of the Ordinary and Universal [Infallible(?)] teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. [6] The Latin Vulgate (LV) version of the Bible by Saint Jerome was completed about 406 A.D. and included the deuterocanonical books. About 1000 years later, the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic by the Fourth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent of the Catholic Church held in northern Italy 1545-1563 A.D. by the Decree "De Canonicis Scripturis" on April 8th, 1546. Pope Pius IV formally confirmed all of its decrees in 1564 A.D. This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible (LV) beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. The books of the canon were listed individually and agreed with the earlier listing already infallibly(?) taught (for about 1000 years prior to the Council of Trent) by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. [7]

http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.shtml

 

[Debi1967]

Therefore it was the OFFICIAL TEACHING of the Church already it just had not been declared DOGMA, which was found to be necessary only after the Reformation and after the dispute over which books belonged in the Bible and which books did not ....

This established that those that tried to do this would be in Anthema to the Church and in direct Protest to Her Doctrines which now cannot be contested .... It was not until this time that something of this nature was even needed considering that it had never seriously been done before by anyone, to think to redefine what God's Inspired Word was to begin with ....

 

[Tertiumquid]

Don't you think using sources that you have researched and then included into your own work Mr Swan is highly prejudicial to this conversation considering your reputation as being someone that is opposed to Catholicism and therefore sways his Apologetics towards those avenues....

Hi Debiwebi,

Everyone has bias. No one is impartial. However, that does not mean someone can't read words in context (Recently I did a study on the Puritan Jonathan Edwards. I was amazed to uncover that some of the leadind Edwardsian scholars weren't even Christians- they were able though to study him accurately). If I have taken something or someone out of context and spun a devious web of bias to ensnare an innocent Roman Catholic, the burden is on you to show me. Then the burden will be on me to repent and ask forgiveness.

Now, I try as much as possible to read sources accurately. Even in my Luther research, I am not a Lutheran: I have no need to save Luther from the clutches of Roman Catholics. Rather, its because I have seen Roman Catholics taking Luther so far out of context that I was provoked to engage in Luther studies. I can provide examples if you wish.

Do you not think that it would be better to also include not only the quote but also the link so that the quote used may be seen in it's entirety as well?

The quotes from Hubert Jedin does not come from a link, but rather from my library. The book is out of print, but some good libraries have it. I happen to have the entire chapter of the work I cited scanned into my computer- If you would like a copy, you are welcome to PM me, and I will send it to an e-mail address as an attachment.

PS... Mr Swan you did not think that thereselittleflower and I did not do our homework did you?

That you have the zeal to defend your church is admirable. I'm sure part of your homework must've been identifying the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation. Thus, I question why you would attack me personally rather than evaluating what i've written.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[constance]

The canon of recognized Scripture is a little bit different and although that Bishop did that it still must be within the confines of our accepted teachings.....

The councils you quote are part of the NINETEEN
the Church recognizes those Councils as standing Councils that apply to the whole of the Church and that applied to the whole of the Church ....

First of all, there are 21 Ecumenical Councils, not 19, including Vatican I and II. The Ecumenical councils do not include Hippo and Carthage, period! Here is a list, taken from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. I added Vatican II myself.


First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)
Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)
Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553)
Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)
Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787)
Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)
Ninth Ecumenical Council: Lateran I (1123)
Tenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran II (1139)
Eleventh Ecumenical Council: Lateran III (1179)
Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV (1215)
Thirteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons I (1245)
Fourteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons II (1274)
Fifteenth Ecumenical Council: Vienne (1311-1313)
Sixteenth Ecumenical Council: Constance (1414-1418)
Seventeenth Ecumenical Council: Basle/Ferrara/Florence (1431-1439)
Eighteenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran V (1512-1517)
Nineteenth Ecumenical Council: Trent (1545-1563)
Twentieth Ecumenical Council: Vatican I (1869-1870)
Twenty-first Ecumenical Council: Vatican II (1962-1965)

Secondly, church teaching was obviously NOT recognized as authoritative since 3 Esdras was removed from the canon at Trent.

Therefore it was the OFFICIAL TEACHING of the Church already it just had not been declared DOGMA, which was found to be necessary only after the Reformation and after the dispute over which books belonged in the Bible and which books did not ....

This established that those that tried to do this would be in Anthema to the Church and in direct Protest to Her Doctrines which now cannot be contested .... It was not until this time that something of this nature was even needed considering that it had never seriously been done before by anyone, to think to redefine what God's Inspired Word was to begin with ....

Was it not a 4th century statement that “if anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the Church, let him be anathema?” Nobody would have dared tamper with the inspired Word of God if indeed this statement applied to scripture, yet these very notable people did, and the Church published sanctioned documents which taught against it:


Jerome: 4th Century
These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...


Pope Gregory the Great: 6th Century
"With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony."

Junilius: 6th Century - Follows Jerome



Primasius: 6th Century - Follows Jerome



Anastasius of Antioch: 6th Century - States that there are 22 OT canonical books



Leontius: 6th Century - Follows the Hebrew Canon



John of Damascus: 8th Century
There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.



Bede: 8th Century – Follows Jerome

Alcuin: 9th Century
Writing against Elipantus, Bishop of Toledo, who made reference to Ecclesiasticus in defending a doctrine he rebuked him saying: ‘That the prophets of God failed him, whereof he had never a one to bring for the defense of his error; and then, that the book of the Son of Sirach, which he had produced, was, both by Jerome's and Isidore's undoubted testimonies, since it was apocryphal, and therefore a dubious scripture, having not been written in the time of the Prophets, but in the time of the priests only, under Simon and Ptolmey.'


Rabanus Maurus & Agobard of Lyons: 9th century: State 22 books in OT

Rupert of Tuits:12th Century
Said Wisdom was not canonical and that there were 24 books

Petrus Mauritius: 12th Century
Said Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and Maccabees are ‘very useful and commendable in the Church' but then he adds ‘that they are not to be placed in the same sublime and equal dignity with the rest'


Hugo of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor – 12th Century: said the OT had 22 books



John Beleth: 12th Century: Said that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit and Maccabees are apocryphal, read, but not canonical



John of Salisbury: 12th Century - Follows Jerome

CHURCH DOCUMENT: GLOSSA ORDINARIA: Thirteenth Century:
States that the Church permits the reading for devotion or instruction. Introduction to each book says:
‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiaticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.'



Johannes de Columna:13th Century- Follows Jerome


Nicholas of Lira & William Occham: 14th Century – not canonical


All of these famous sixteenth century Catholics supported Jerome:
- Antoninus
- Alphonsus Tostatus
- Jacobus Faber Stapulensis
- Erasmus
- Seripando



Cardinal Ximenez
(16th century theologian)
Published "Biblia Complutensia" in collaboration with leading theologians. In the preface, he states that the apocrypha is not Scripture, that it is not to be used to confirm the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, but could be used for reading for edification. This bible was dedicated to and authorized by Pope Leo X.


Cardinal Cajetan
(leading RC scholar - 16th century - during the reformation)
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.


Constance

 

[Debi1967]

constance because of the other things that you know are on my plate right now ..... please give a chance and I will address you post in the next couple of days ....

 

[constance]

No problem!

Constance

 

[Debi1967]

Hi Debiwebi,

Everyone has bias. No one is impartial. However, that does not mean someone can't read words in context (Recently I did a study on the Puritan Jonathan Edwards. I was amazed to uncover that some of the leadind Edwardsian scholars weren't even Christians- they were able though to study him accurately). If I have taken something or someone out of context and spun a devious web of bias to ensnare an innocent Roman Catholic, the burden is on you to show me. Then the burden will be on me to repent and ask forgiveness.

Now, I try as much as possible to read sources accurately. Even in my Luther research, I am not a Lutheran: I have no need to save Luther from the clutches of Roman Catholics. Rather, its because I have seen Roman Catholics taking Luther so far out of context that I was provoked to engage in Luther studies. I can provide examples if you wish.




The quotes from Hubert Jedin does not come from a link, but rather from my library. The book is out of print, but some good libraries have it. I happen to have the entire chapter of the work I cited scanned into my computer- If you would like a copy, you are welcome to PM me, and I will send it to an e-mail address as an attachment.



That you have the zeal to defend your church is admirable. I'm sure part of your homework must've been identifying the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation. Thus, I question why you would attack me personally rather than evaluating what i've written.

Regards,
James Swan

Mr. Swan,
Please know that I too will address your post as well but it will have to wait for a few days... I am sorry as I have so many things going on right now that it is impossible for me to address this right now....

I would like to address one part of your post though.... please do not assume that I am attacking sir without first asking me for verification of my meaning, as that was not my intent... My intent was to tell you that I had indeed researched your site and I had indeed researched into who you actually are .... It was not meant to attack you merely to let you know so that we are on an even playing field.... If you so choose to take that as an attack then I am sorry, as it was never meant in that fashion, I am a rather forthright person sir, I do not use ad hominem attacks trust me, should I feel compelled you will know directly how I feel ....

Pax Christi
Debi