The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Albion]

Sacred Scripture expressly refers to oral traditions and indicates that the recipients of the letter are to adhere to them.

My point was that it's just a theory. Scripture is not.

I already gave you the verse I believe. But that is fine if you think that I am just blowing smoke.

"Blowing smoke?" No, that would be too strong. But the verse doesn't say what you want it to say, so that's what I was pointing out.

Well this is interesting. You do not hold that the canon of Scripture is divinely revealed and must he held by all Christians as a matter of faith?

I don't know where you got that idea.

You would say that is merely a custom?

No. Canonization means that something was finalized or made official. That's what those several councils did, but the implication that you offered me to the effect that this action CREATED the Scriptures or that they were the product of some traditions is factually, historically, incorrect. All the books that were accepted into the Bible were already in use in the churches and were considered by them to be inspired.

No. It is based on the interpretive tradition of Sacred Scripture. Both you and I know very well that there is nothing in Scripture that clearly teaches that infants should be baptized.

On the contrary, I, like most Christians who believe that there is no age requirement for Baptism, cite several verses and passages in the New Testament for our conclusion.

But please let me clarify exactly what it is you believe. Do you not believe that it is a divinely revealed truth that infants should be baptized?

I do so believe.

Not all of the branches of Christianity accept the Bible for what it claims to be. Protestants do not accept the Bible for what it claims to be, from my perspective, because you reject 7 books that I consider to be the inspired word of God.

In that regard, you are mistaken.

If I came to you and I said "The Catholic Church knows that these 7 books are the inspired word of God because they have proved themselves" and so on and so forth you would say "Swag that is weak sauce." But that is essentially the argument that you have made above.

No. I would offer you the history concerning those books and show why you are misinformed. I might ALSO mention that you believe as you do solely or mainly because you are disposed to take whatever your church tells you to believe about them as your guide.

But that is neither here nor there. For this thread I define Sacred Tradition as divinely revealed truths passed down from Christ or the apostles, and which are not found within the text of Sacred Scripture itself and that must be held by the Christian faithful. By this definition the statement that "The book of James is the inspired word of God" is Sacred Tradition.

True or not, all that that statement says is the church accepts the authority of Scripture and long has done so! You are not saying that there is anything that stands alone and is the equal of Scripture.

Well it is not my intention to persuade you so I will not go down this rabbit hole. I would think that many of the arguments you allude to above are often used by atheists, Muslims, and other non-believers in attacking Sacred Scripture.

It is irrelevant for our purposes what they say about our faith.

Well, I don't think that the removal of 7 books that are the inspired word of God, or the inclusion of 7 books that are not the inspired word of God is a "minor disagreement".

Those books were only included PROVISIONALLY by the councils that canonized the Bible. There always was--and of course continues to be--a dispute about them.

During the Reformation, the Protestants removed all of the Apocrypha from the Bible AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVED SOME OF THE APOCRYPHA.

Your argument fails because if they were inspired, as you think, and if they were always thought by the church to be so, this could not have been the Roman Church's decision.

But that is neither here nor there. I suppose we all have our standards as for what is major or minor.

The reason for my using the word minor relates to the fact that there is not a single doctrine that is dependent upon anything found in the Apocrypha. Since this discussion is about what it is that determines doctrine, the Apocryphal books, then, play no part.

Well the Christian Church remained in only one corner of the world during the time of Christ and the apostles, so that is neither here nor there.

I did not say that it was one part of the planet, i.e. "the world." I referred to only one part of the Christian world as it was then. The principle that is supposed to be involved with Sacred Tradition is that it is a belief that was held throughout the church, not just by some people or in one or a few countries--in Spain, for example--but rejected or unknown elsewhere.

If it is divine revelation, as the Roman Catholic Church maintains, it has to be given to the whole church.

The question is whether whether Sacred Tradition was revealed by Christ and the apostles, or whether it was not.

Yes, but I think it's more a question of whether or not it actually is that which is claimed for it.

As for Papal Infallibility, I would most likely look to Sacred Scripture before Sacred Tradition for that belief, but that is neither here nor there.

Well, Sacred Tradition doesn't support it, so that has to be significant since the claim that was adopted in the 1870s was that Sacred Tradition upheld it.

Well I do not think I was exactly brainwashed by the Catholic Church, if that is what you are insinuating.

I said that what you referred to was what we both were taught by the Catholic Church. I wouldn't call that brainwashing.

I was a Protestant for much longer than I have been Catholic, although I have been a Catholic a good number of years now as well. It is not as if all Catholics became so out of sheer indoctrination from our youths or an unwillingness to apply reason.

For many, it is. Of course, that wouldn't be true of every last parishioner.

this is quite interesting. Do you think that a person can rationally come to accept our blessed Lord as savior as a matter of reason, logic or history? Do you think that a man can become Christian without divine intervention on the part of God?

A very interesting question that has been discussed here on CF many times, but I prefer to stick with the topic of this thread for the time being.

 

[redleghunter]

Do you have any problem with admitting that you believe certain things as a matter of faith? Our blessed Lord places great emphasis on faith in the New Testament, so I do not know why you and @Albion seem to be troubled by the idea that Christians take our beliefs as a matter of faith (exercising our reason as well, of course). Again, if Sacred Scripture and Christianity can be proved solely as a matter of history or reason, what need is there for faith?

As long as you see that this faith we have is not blind faith as the atheists assert, but based on factual evidence.

 

[redleghunter]

I already wrote that the case for authenticity was strong. But it is not irrefutable. I can have 1 million purported copies of a document that agree with each other 100%. This does not prove that they are true copies of the original. They could all be copies of a forged document. And throwing around numbers like 25,000 is not all that impressive when the vast majority of those copies date hundreds and thousands of years after the originals.

Well that is not true. Yes we have the tens of thousands of manuscripts showing the reliability is sound. Plus we have the testimony of the communion of saints who quoted and taught these NT Scriptures very early on. That is what is called a dual independent verification.

 

[redleghunter]

Those books were only included PROVISIONALLY by the councils that canonized the Bible. There always was--and of course continues to be--a dispute about them.

During the Reformation, the Protestants removed all of the Apocrypha from the Bible AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVED SOME OF THE APOCRYPHA. Your argument fails completely because if they were inspired, as you think, and if they were always thought by the church to be so, this could not have been the Roman Church's decision.

The dispute of the OT deuterocanon books went into the Council of Trent. There was firm opposition by some of the greatest theologians of that time going into that Council. One cardinal was even advocating well before Trent that the NT should have a protocanon and deuterocanon based on the early disputed or The Antilegomena.

(This for conversation since I quoted @Swag365)

For some reason can't access the New Advent site right now (was just reading Against Heresies last night so don't know if it was a site maintenance issue) so here is the quote from the introduction:

Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the New Testament, which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul--the Evangelium and the Apostolicum. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the New Testament)​

Here is information on the dissent on the canon prior to Trent and during Trent. Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.”

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

“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.” (ibid, 281-282)​

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture." (B. F. Wescott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, (3rd ed., London: MacMillian, 1870), 429; C.f. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 238-240)​

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ) :

"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.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)​

Jedin summarizes:

“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. The books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.”

“Two questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop of Fano, desired? The second question was closely linked with the first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing different degrees of authority within the canon?

With regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of one mind. In the general congregation of 12 February, Del Monte, taking the standpoint of formal Canon Law, declared that the Florentine canon, since it was a decision of a General Council, must be accepted without discussion. On the other hand Cervini and Pole, supported by Madruzzo and a number of prelates familiar with the writings of the reformers and the humanists, urged the necessity of countering in advance the attacks that were to be expected from the Protestants by consolidating their own position, and of providing their own theologians with weapons for the defence of the decree as well as for the instruction of the faithful...The discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is, without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already contained the answer to the second question.” — Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56​

So there's more history to the assertion "The Protestants threw out 7 books." On the Roman Catholic side there was serious debate going into and during Trent. I gather that means the "Tradition of Sacred Scripture" had its birth with the Canons of Trent.

 

[Swag365]

My point was that it's just a theory. Scripture is not.

Sacred Scripture is a theory to the majority of people on the Earth my friend. Most people do not believe that they are authentic, let alone the inspired word of God. You reject Sacred Tradition as a "theory" just as the muslims and the atheists reject Sacred Scripture as a "theory". They think that Sacred Scripture was invented "poof" out of thin air just as you seem to think Sacred Tradition was. The fact that you and other people view Sacred Tradition as "just a theory" does not disprove it any more so than the fact that an muslim views Sacred Scripture as "just a theory" disproves Sacred Scripture.

"Blowing smoke?" No, that would be too strong. But the verse doesn't say what you want it to say, so that's what I was pointing out.

It says hold to the traditions that the author passed down, whether written or oral. Thus, I will hold to written and oral tradition. Beyond that I do not know what you think "I want it to mean".

I don't know where you got that idea.

You wrote "That might be called a tradition of sorts, but by the word all you mean there is that it is custom, not a second stream of divine revelation, etc. which is what the Catholic churches say Holy Tradition is" after I mentioned infant baptism and the canon as examples of Sacred Tradition. Thus, I understood that you were referring to infant baptism and the canons as mere "customs" but not divine revelation. What did you mean then?

No. Canonization means that something was finalized or made official. That's what those several councils did, but the implication that you offered me to the effect that this action CREATED the Scriptures or that they were the product of some traditions is factually, historically, incorrect. All the books that were accepted into the Bible were already in use in the churches and were considered by them to be inspired.

I did not mean to indicate that the formal canonization process created the scriptures, nor did I write that. Of course the Scriptures were god breath at the moment of their creation. The fact that somebody comes along at a later point in time does not make it so.

Here is your specific example of Sacred Tradition:

"The book of James is the inspired word of God." This statement is found nowhere in Scripture, but it is a divinely revealed truth that Christians must accept. Thus, it is Sacred Tradition as I defined it above. If you disagree then you must show where the statement is proved in Sacred Scripture itself.

On the contrary, I, like most Christians who believe that there is no age requirement for Baptism, cite several verses and passages in the New Testament for our conclusion.

Well you can cite whatever you want. There is no example of an infant baptized in Sacred Scripture and there are no instructions that it is acceptable to do so.

In that regard, you are mistaken.

No, sir, you are mistaken. You see where that gets us?

No. I would offer you the history concerning those books and show why you are misinformed. I might ALSO mention that you believe as you do solely or mainly because you are disposed to take whatever your church tells you to believe about them as your guide.

And I would refute your arguments and we would reach no agreement, just like you would refute the arguments of a Muslim when they attack the authenticity of the New Testament, and would reach no agreement. I am sure it has all be done on the internet a thousand times before. It need not be repeated.

True or not, all that that statement says is the church accepts the authority of Scripture and long has done so! You are not saying that there is anything that stands alone and is the equal of Scripture.

Nonsense. I already gave an examples of things that stand alone and are the equal of Sacred Scripture in this very thread. You reject every example I give with sophistry so we can just agree to disagree on this point without rehashing it.

It is irrelevant for our purposes what they say about our faith.

Why is that? I could just as easily say "It is irrelevant for my purposes what Anglicans say about the Catholic faith" and summarily disregard everything you have to say. You are employing the same logic.

Those books were only included PROVISIONALLY by the councils that canonized the Bible. There always was--and of course continues to be--a dispute about them.

During the Reformation, the Protestants removed all of the Apocrypha from the Bible AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVED SOME OF THE APOCRYPHA.

Your argument fails because if they were inspired, as you think, and if they were always thought by the church to be so, this could not have been the Roman Church's decision.

Oh please. There were disputes over many of the books of the Bible both OT and NT at various points in time and various people have included or removed them at times (such as Martin Luther famously removing James and other books). But you can create a new thread on whether those 7 books are the inspired word of God or not. I am sure that there are hundreds of threads on it already without any agreement.

The reason for my using the word minor relates to the fact that there is not a single doctrine that is dependent upon anything found in the Apocrypha. Since this discussion is about what it is that determines doctrine, the Apocryphal books, then, play no part.

Who cares? There is not any single doctrine in Sacred Scripture that is solely dependent on any of the gospels. I guess that also makes the inclusion or non-inclusion of the gospels "minor".

I did not say that it was one part of the planet, i.e. "the world." I referred to only one part of the Christian world as it was then. The principle that is supposed to be involved with Sacred Tradition is that it is a belief that was held throughout the church, not just by some people or in one or a few countries--in Spain, for example--but rejected or unknown elsewhere.

I already gave you my definition in this thread. That definition did not include "being held throughout the church". If Jesus or one of the apostles taught it, and it is not recorded in Sacred Scripture, it is tradition for my purposes. And it is divinely revealed. It does not matter if only 1 person or a million people believed it. Truth is truth.

If it is divine revelation, as the Roman Catholic Church maintains, it has to be given to the whole church.

Oh please. Absolutely nothing would satisfy this pseudo definition because nothing has been held by each and every member of the church.

Yes, but I think it's more a question of whether or not it actually is that which is claimed for it.

Yes, that is the question. I believe it is and you do not. Big surprise there.

Well, Sacred Tradition doesn't support it, so that has to be significant since the claim that was adopted in the 1870s was that Sacred Tradition upheld it.

Who cares? Obviously you believe that, and you also believe that Sacred Scripture does not support it. If you believed otherwise you would be Catholic, and people have been debating over that for decades.

I said that what you referred to was what we both were taught by the Catholic Church. I wouldn't call that brainwashing.

You seemed to suggest that the reason I believed it was merely because the Catholic Church taught it, and that I had no other basis for my conclusions other than just blindly following my church. If that is not what you intended to imply then I was incorrect.

For many, it is. Of course, that wouldn't be true of every last parishioner.

How many would you say it is true for? 90 percent? 99 percent? I could just as easily throw around the same accusation with respect to Anglicans or any other denomination whose doctrine I disagree with. It does not really get anyone anywhere.

A very interesting question that has been discussed here on CF many times, but I prefer to stick with the topic of this thread for the time being.

No it is a very relevant topic to this thread because you took issue with the fact that I base my beliefs with respect to Sacred Scripture on faith. I then asserted that you also base your beliefs on faith. So whether you base your beliefs on faith or not is very much on the table, unless you want to withdraw your objection.

 

[Swag365]

The dispute of the OT deuterocanon books went into the Council of Trent. There was firm opposition by some of the greatest theologians of that time going into that Council. One cardinal was even advocating well before Trent that the NT should have a protocanon and deuterocanon based on the early disputed or The Antilegomena.

(This for conversation since I quoted @Swag365)

For some reason can't access the New Advent site right now (was just reading Against Heresies last night so don't know if it was a site maintenance issue) so here is the quote from the introduction:

Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the New Testament, which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul--the Evangelium and the Apostolicum. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the New Testament)​

Here is information on the dissent on the canon prior to Trent and during Trent. Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.”

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

“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.” (ibid, 281-282)​

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture." (B. F. Wescott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, (3rd ed., London: MacMillian, 1870), 429; C.f. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 238-240)​

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ) :

"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.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)​

Jedin summarizes:

“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. The books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.”

“Two questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop of Fano, desired? The second question was closely linked with the first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing different degrees of authority within the canon?

With regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of one mind. In the general congregation of 12 February, Del Monte, taking the standpoint of formal Canon Law, declared that the Florentine canon, since it was a decision of a General Council, must be accepted without discussion. On the other hand Cervini and Pole, supported by Madruzzo and a number of prelates familiar with the writings of the reformers and the humanists, urged the necessity of countering in advance the attacks that were to be expected from the Protestants by consolidating their own position, and of providing their own theologians with weapons for the defence of the decree as well as for the instruction of the faithful...The discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is, without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already contained the answer to the second question.” — Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56​

So there's more history to the assertion "The Protestants threw out 7 books." On the Roman Catholic side there was serious debate going into and during Trent. I gather that means the "Tradition of Sacred Scripture" had its birth with the Canons of Trent.

Sure there is a big debate over it. It has all been done before and there are many books on it. You would say that they are uninspired and I would say that they are inspired at the end of it. You can create a 1000 page thread on it but we know at the end of the thread what the results will be. The point is that we apply reason to the extent that we can, but we still make an act of faith to believe what we do after that analysis is complete.

In the case of Sacred Tradition, after considering arguments, evidence and so forth, I have faith that Sacred Tradition is inspired by God, just like you have faith that Sacred Scripture is inspired by God after considering all of the evidence and arguments on both sides. It is not like you have 100% mathematical certainty that what our blessed Lord taught is true. You may have 100% certainty but that comes through faith, it is the gift of God. It does not come merely from technical or historical analysis. . .

 

[Swag365]

@Albion @redleghunter

OK folks I will let ya'll have the last word on it. Gonna get ready for NYE and I think I have made the main points that I want to make. I am sure that both of you will disagree but that is fine. Good chat.

 

[redleghunter]

Sure there is a big debate over it. It has all been done before and there are many books on it. You would say that they are uninspired and I would say that they are inspired at the end of it. You can create a 1000 page thread on it but we know at the end of the thread what the results will be. The point is that at the end of all of it and we apply reason to the extent that we can, we still make an act of faith to believe what we do.

The point in posting that long thread was to show the scholarship which refutes the assertion "The Protestants threw out a bunch of books."

In the particular case of this thread, I after considering arguments, evidence and so forth, I have faith that Sacred Tradition is inspired by God, just like you have faith that Sacred Scripture is inspired by God after considering all of the evidence and arguments on both sides. It is not like you have 100% mathematical certainty that what our blessed Lord taught is true. You may have 100% certainty but that comes through faith, it is the gift of God. It does not come merely from technical or historical analysis. . .

I will have to conclude with what I started with.

We have the Scriptures OT already in place before the birth of Christ. For the NT, it was actually written in the time of the apostles walked the earth.

You attribute one verse that mentions "tradition" and assume every sacred tradition throughout Catholic history stuffs easily in that bag.

You say you take it by faith. Ok I accept that, but faith in something that is not based on something that was written and but "realized" in some cases centuries later. Yet with Holy Scriptures we do have it written down and know the traditions are apostolic because even the early church had the documents in their hands.

When Jesus gave commands before His Ascension into Heaven to be seated at the Right Hand of the Father, He opened the Apostles minds to the Holy Scriptures:

Luke 24: NASB

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”​

 

[redleghunter]

@Albion @redleghunter

OK folks I will let ya'll have the last word on it. Gonna get ready for NYE and I think I have made the main points that I want to make. I am sure that both of you will disagree but that is fine. Good chat.

Happy New Year Swag. May the blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you and your family.

 

[Albion]

Sacred Scripture is a theory to the majority of people on the Earth my friend.

I am not counting noses. It is a theory. That is because there is nothing of substance to support it but only a concept about what God might have done, ought to have done, etc. If you disagree, offer us your supporting evidence, not including "the church says."

Most people do not believe that they are authentic, let alone the inspired word of God. You reject Sacred Tradition as a "theory" just as the muslims and the atheists reject Sacred Scripture as a "theory".

Are you now advocating that the atheists and Muslims are the standard against which we Christians have to match up?

It says hold to the traditions that the author passed down, whether written or oral.

Sure. But traditions are not "Sacred Tradition." Lighting candles or gathering in the dark awaiting the sun on Easter morning are examples of religious traditions. What we are discussing is what's called Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition, a theory about a second stream (after Scripture) of divine revelation which can be identified in a certain way.

In addition, the verse you are referring to identifies NO particular traditions. Do you think we just get to 'pencil them in' as we like? What kind of authority is that to put up against Scripture?

Thus, I will hold to written and oral tradition.

Very well, name a few of them for us. You were asked this before and gave back two which were not traditions based upon the "Sacred Tradition" concept.

You wrote "That might be called a tradition of sorts, but by the word all you mean there is that it is custom, not a second stream of divine revelation, etc. which is what the Catholic churches say Holy Tradition is" after I mentioned infant baptism and the canon as examples of Sacred Tradition. Thus, I understood that you were referring to infant baptism and the canons as mere "customs" but not divine revelation. What did you mean then?

What I meant was that infant baptism and the canons are not considered to be true or whatever...because of Holy Tradition. Infant baptism is based on Scripture and the canons are a simple operation of church government.

I did not mean to indicate that the formal canonization process created the scriptures, nor did I write that.

You don't think the canonization of the Bible was the result of "tradition" or "Holy Tradition" then. Right?

Here is your specific example of Sacred Tradition:

"The book of James is the inspired word of God." This statement is found nowhere in Scripture, but it is a divinely revealed truth that Christians must accept. Thus, it is Sacred Tradition as I defined it above.

It's Scripture, not tradition! The Epistle of James is a book of the Bible.

Well you can cite whatever you want. There is no example of an infant baptized in Sacred Scripture and there are no instructions that it is acceptable to do so.

In several places, "entire households" are described as having been baptized on the affirmation of faith of the householder. The possibility of families of that time and place--and not just one of them--being childless and yet there being enough other members in residence to constitute a "household" is so remote that the conclusion is almost obligatory. But if it is not, this still isn't an essential doctrine. And that is the topic here.

In fact, it is contradictory for a Catholic whose church supposes that the vaguest Scriptural wording is sufficient to dogmatize such beliefs that are binding on the faithful as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy, and Purgatory would accept all of that...and yet insist that no children were present when entire households were baptized in New Testament times.

 

[fhansen]

Because, as I just told you (above) and have told you many times before, you have said Sola Scriptura cannot be the guide since the churches which claim to follow it are in disagreement about the meaning of parts of it (Scripture), but THIS ALSO IS THE CASE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA.

You've laid out your reason for dismissing Sola Scriptura but then you advocate for an alternative that fails equally to meet your standard.

There’s more to it than disagreement though, as I’ve mentioned previously. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that its supporters want it to do what it simply cannot, which is to speak clearly and authoritatively on any particular matter of faith that needs addressing. Since disagreement between interpretations is inevitable, and there’s nothing intrinsic to the doctrine that designates some single interpreter to resolve this issue, it remains mainly unproductive, stifled for it’s claimed purpose. A proponent simply interprets and applies Scripture in their own particular way and then says, “See, it works.” At least for himself.

The oldest churches which claim Tradition are at least in a better position because, as we’ve seen, regardless of any commentary or supposed disagreements, those churches remain quite similar in beliefs and practices despite centuries of isolation. Tradition, including the recognition of early concilliar decrees, has a way of doing that. It’s a matter of simply not straying far from what one has received and known, doing more or less as one has always done in the past. Sacraments, incidentally, define and preserve theology in their own concrete, physical manner, making the faith simple to understand and live out in some most basic ways.

But getting back to the question; the only solution is for an earthly, divinely designated voice to be able to speak for the faith: defining, clarifying, and explaining it-because of the fact that humans, on our own, will disagree. And with no objective, visible authority to point to other than ourselves, no single unified body of beliefs can logically exist- just a bunch of more or less disparate ones, all equally uncertain.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I do believe I provided the Reformation definition of Sola Scriptura several times in this older thread. I’ll do it again:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scripturahas often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scripturato mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.

More at link:
Understanding Sola Scriptura

The simple definition would be that in areas of doctrines and practices, ONLY the scriptures are the inspired and infallible guidelines for us to follow and apply!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I am not counting noses. It is a theory. That is because there is nothing of substance to support it but only a concept about what God might have done, ought to have done, etc. If you disagree, offer us your supporting evidence, not including "the church says."


Are you now advocating that the atheists and Muslims are the standard against which we Christians have to match up?


Sure. But traditions are not "Sacred Tradition." Lighting candles or gathering in the dark awaiting the sun on Easter morning are examples of religious traditions. What we are discussing is what's called Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition, a theory about a second stream (after Scripture) of divine revelation which can be identified in a certain way.

In addition, the verse you are referring to identifies NO particular traditions. Do you think we just get to 'pencil them in' as we like? What kind of authority is that to put up against Scripture?


Very well, name a few of them for us. You were asked this before and gave back two which were not traditions based upon the "Sacred Tradition" concept.


What I meant was that infant baptism and the canons are not considered to be true or whatever...because of Holy Tradition. Infant baptism is based on Scripture and the canons are a simple operation of church government.


You don't think the canonization of the Bible was the result of "tradition" or "Holy Tradition" then. Right?


It's Scripture, not tradition! The Epistle of James is a book of the Bible.


In several places, "entire households" are described as having been baptized on the affirmation of faith of the householder. The possibility of families of that time and place--and not just one of them--being childless and yet there being enough other members in residence to constitute a "household" is so remote that the conclusion is almost obligatory. But if it is not, this still isn't an essential doctrine. And that is the topic here.

In fact, it is contradictory for a Catholic whose church supposes that the vaguest Scriptural wording is sufficient to dogmatize such beliefs that are binding on the faithful as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy, and Purgatory would accept all of that...and yet insist that no children were present when entire households were baptized in New Testament times.

Jesus and the Apostles always appealed to sacred scripturesalone, and not to tradiions of men also.

 

[redleghunter]

The simple definition would be that in areas of doctrines and practices, ONLY the scriptures are the inspired and infallible guidelines for us to follow and apply!

Not to wax poetic but as you know:

like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation (1 Peter 2:2)

 

[Swag365]

It's Scripture, not tradition! The Epistle of James is a book of the Bible.

No, the Epistle of James is a book of Sacred Scripture, but the statement that "The book of James is the inspired word of God" is not Sacred Scripture. This statement is found neither in the book of James, nor anywhere else in the Bible.

You don't think the canonization of the Bible was the result of "tradition" or "Holy Tradition" then. Right?

Of course it was. The truth of their inspiration is found in Sacred Tradition, passed down orally from the apostles to members of the church, ultimately leading to their formal canonization.

Are you now advocating that the atheists and Muslims are the standard against which we Christians have to match up?

No, I advocated that your argument is fundamentally the same as the argument of the atheists and Muslims, and just as flawed.

In several places, "entire households" are described as having been baptized on the affirmation of faith of the householder. The possibility of families of that time and place--and not just one of them--being childless and yet there being enough other members in residence to constitute a "household" is so remote that the conclusion is almost obligatory. But if it is not, this still isn't an essential doctrine. And that is the topic here.

The salvation of infants is essential doctrine. And no, the "conclusion is not almost obligatory". If you start a thread on that topic in CF the Baptists, Pentecostals, evangelicals, and numerous other Christians will disagree with your "almost obligatory" conclusions. Heck, even in this thread I imagine that your friends @YeshuaFan and @redleghunter will disagree with you that infant baptism is properly discerned from Sacred Scripture. You cannot even convince your fellow Protestants of what you claim.

What I meant was that infant baptism and the canons are not considered to be true or whatever...because of Holy Tradition. Infant baptism is based on Scripture and the canons are a simple operation of church government.

Operations of church government are capable of error. Or are they now infallible?

You (not I) take the position that the Protestant canon is "simply an operation of church government". Thus, because operations of church government are capable of error, you have conceded that the Protestant canon is capable of error, because the Protestant canon itself is determined by an operation that is capable of error. Thus, according to your own logic, your ultimate and sole authority for doctrine, the Protestant canon, is subject to error.

Now, of course, you naturally hold that the Protestant canon is true. But that is a matter of faith. You ultimately hold that the Protestant canon is true as a matter of faith, just as I hold that Sacred Tradition is true as a matter of faith.

Again, all of this eventually comes back to faith, and perhaps in that sense, Martin Luther was right.

Have a nice day.

 

[Swag365]

The simple definition would be that in areas of doctrines and practices, ONLY the scriptures are the inspired and infallible guidelines for us to follow and apply!

What about the Holy Spirit acting within your own heart? He prompts you to do X and refrain from Y, and you are bound to follow his guidance, are you not?

 

[Swag365]

You attribute one verse that mentions "tradition" and assume every sacred tradition throughout Catholic history stuffs easily in that bag.

I would not say that. I think here you are suggesting that I assume that everything that the Catholic Church asserts is found in Sacred Tradition is easily proven so. No, I do not think that is the case at all. There appears to be relatively scant evidence for some doctrines, such as some of those that @Albion mentioned in his last post above.

You say you take it by faith. Ok I accept that, but faith in something that is not based on something that was written and but "realized" in some cases centuries later.

Well, that is how a lot of Protestants view it I think. That certain things were not really taught by the apostles and passed down orally. That they were essentially "made up" out of thin air many hundreds of years later. That's cool by me. I can't prove it to you, but I believe it.

Yet with Holy Scriptures we do have it written down and know the traditions are apostolic because even the early church had the documents in their hands.

Well, you take it as a matter of faith that Sacred Scripture as we have it today is the same as the original manuscripts (and even that the original documents themselves exist, as opposed to being a complete fabrication "realized" (as you put it) several hundred years later). It is impossible to prove as a matter of scientific fact that they are genuine, because our earliest copies date several hundred years after the authors purportedly wrote them, as discussed previously in this thread.

As we discussed before, there is very strong evidentiary proof that Sacred Scripture has been reliably transmitted down to us over the centuries, but it is certainly not "undeniable proof" as proven by the Muslims, atheists, and many others. Ultimately you do have to make an act of faith to believe what you believe, although your faith is consistent with and supported by reason.

It is essentially the same for Sacred Tradition I think. We have our logical arguments (which you reject), based on the Church Fathers, historical necessity given the state of literacy in the ancient world, and so forth. I think that Sacred Tradition is reasonable in terms of the logical arguments, but ultimately I still have to make an act of faith to hold it as true. I cannot prove it to you any more so than you can prove to an atheist or a Muslim that the Christian Scriptures are the inspired word of God. I believe that God has acted within the Church throughout history to preserve Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and that both are reliable because God has preserved them.

Of course, you believe that our claims concerning Sacred Tradition are inconsistent with history, logic, or what have you, and that is fine. Plenty of Muslims, atheists, and so forth view your logical and historical arguments with the same degree of skepticism. The fact that you cannot prove your position to them should cause you no concern, because ultimately faith is required to hold what you believe.

So I would guess that I tend to view your skepticism about Sacred Tradition in the same way that you might view non-Christians who reject what you believe. We can still get along even though we have differing views about what history or evidence proves or disproves.

I will probably check back in a few weeks if you would like to respond.

 

[Albion]

No, the Epistle of James is a book of Sacred Scripture, but the statement that "The book of James is the inspired word of God" is not Sacred Scripture.

What I wrote is that the book is part of the Bible.

I sounds like you are saying that you do not believe the Bible to be divine revelation. Maybe that isn't your view. Your church says it is the word of God and so does the Bible itself. And the Bible itself says that the writers wrote as they were inspired to write. It is not simply a collection of the musings of some old Hebrews.

So I would guess that I tend to view your skepticism about Sacred Tradition in the same way that you might view non-Christians who reject what you believe.

Not in the least. However, I have come to the conclusion that the problem here is that you misunderstand what Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition AKA Tradition means and how that is different from "traditions."

 

[Swag365]

What I wrote is that the book is part of the Bible.

I sounds like you are saying that you do not believe the Bible to be divine revelation. Maybe that isn't your view. Your church says it is the word of God and so does the Bible itself. And the Bible itself says that the writers wrote as they were inspired to write. It is not simply a collection of the musings of some old Hebrews.

No, the Bible does not state that the Book of James is the inspired word of God. If it said that you should be able to give me the exact chapter and verse where I can find this teaching. But you cannot.

It is the tradition of the Church that holds that the Book of James is the inspired word of God. The same tradition on which your beliefs are based but which you cannot admit because it conflicts with your theology.

And of course I believe the Bible to be divinely revealed. I have made that clear several times so there is not need for you to keep beating the same dead horse. What I do not hold is that Sacred Scripture purports that each of the books in the canon to be Sacred Scripture. If that were the case Martin Luther, the person most closely associated with Sola Scriptura itself, could not have been so quick to have thrown James out of the Bible. If that were the case you could give me the chapter and verse that teaches that James is the inspired word of God. You cannot.

Not in the least. However, I have come to the conclusion that the problem here is that you misunderstand what Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition AKA Tradition means and how that is different from "traditions."

First, the comment that I wrote was not directed to you. Second, no. This is not true. I have no misunderstanding whatsoever. Nor have you explained what the alleged misunderstanding is. This simply amounts to an ad hominem attack without substance.

 

[i submitted to the Lord]

Hi. How can i get in touch directly with you? I have some questions regarding this subject, and others, i think you might be able to help me better elucidate.
Please let me know.