why not the apocrypha?

[SummaScriptura]

Agreed. The deuterocanonicals are not strictly doctrinal, Tobit and Judith are morality stories , 1,2, 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras are narrative histories as cases in point. With protocanonical books this is often the case as well. I mean what doctrines arise from Ecclesiastes or Job or Song of Songs?

I believe people attribute varying levels of authority to all the books of the Bible anyway even if they don't acknowledge it. People could admit the deuterocanonicals and see no important doctrines changed. On the other hand, they could see a ton of important context added.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

I noticed a similarity between the Sadducees only accepting the Pentateuch as "inspired" and rejecting the prophets who prophesied a New Covenant to come which would put them out of business and those Protestants who reject the Apocrypha which contains prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees and that's waaaaaay too Catholic for them.

Each group rejected what they thought was a challenge to their theology.

Probably not important

I am just wondering why you call yourself "father" when Jesus said "
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...1Pcgjpy-0MN6JEVEYJUIKA&bvm=bv.108194040,d.cGc
I am also wondering what gives the Catholic church the right to change God's 10 commandments?

 

[Wgw]

I'm sorry to see you misinformed about such a basic matter. The "Church of England Tradition" and the "Lutheran tradition" do not hold that the Apocryphal books are "inspired." That's what I wrote--inspired.

They hold that these books have value, a place, and are to be read, although, not being inspired writings, they are not to be used to establish doctrine. All the other churches that you mentioned here are Catholic churches, so there's nothing in what I wrote earlier that has to be amended or explained there.

I did just now notice this post of yours, and I do feel obliged to state, for the record, that I do object to being described as a member of a "Catholic church" according to a definition that would include the Orthodox with the RCs and Assyrians as a group and exclude Anglicans. It has an implication that I suspect many Anglicans would disagree with, and it seems from a purely Orthodox perspective to in effect suggest a lack of appreciation for the very considerable distinction between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, which is effectively I think as great a distinction all things considered as exists between ourselves and the Anglicans, lerhaps in decades past a greater decision when the elusive goal of ecumenical unity with the Anglicans seemed altogether rather less elusive.

 

[Wgw]

OK, well Melito is still still not an authority everywhere, because a person can be "right" about a detail and not as popular about something completely different (such as the date for Easter, which even when agreeing about the date still is a matter of the importance of Easter). Same thing about Athanasius: while he was right about the Trinity there were other things where he either wasn't or misconducted (such as trying to hide evidence) - although that might have added up to something good: perhaps a few more believe in the trinity "thanks to" how Athanasius conducted:

I should rather like it if you might account for your claim as to intentional deception on the part of St. Athanasius.

 

[Wgw]

I am just wondering why you call yourself "father" when Jesus said "
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
I am also wondering what gives the Catholic church the right to change God's 10 commandments?

Since Fr. Jim has not been around in a while, I feel obliged to comment on this point. Whereas one can legitimately raise an onjection to the Orthodox-Catholic-Anglican tradition of referring to priests and bishops as "Father" on the basis of Matthew 23:9, and whereas those churches which follow that tradition have responses to this objection, it is not, however, entirely reasonable, in my view, to object to clergy in that church using that title in accordance with the existing practice of their church.

Now, regarding your second question, I did search through the thread history, and saw a very interesting thread with very interesting contributions by @fatherjimparker , @Albion and other members, but I saw no discussion of any attempt by the Roman Catholics to redefine the ten commandments. On this point I consider that most members outside of certain groups of devotees of an extremely "liberal" or more accurately postmodern theology or certain unconventional groups that would in most cases be non-Nicene per se, would agree that it is improper for Christian churches to intentionally manipulate scriptural texts for whatever reason, and whereas we have had in this thread what I think can be regarded as a healthy and interesting debate on canons, no one is accusing anyone of having malignantly tampered with the text per se in the manner you suggest.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Since Fr. Jim has not been around in a while, I feel obliged to comment on this point. Whereas one can legitimately raise an onjection to the Orthodox-Catholic-Anglican tradition of referring to priests and bishops as "Father" on the basis of Matthew 23:9, and whereas those churches which follow that tradition have responses to this objection, it is not, however, entirely reasonable, in my view, to object to clergy in that church using that title in accordance with the existing practice of their church.

Now, regarding your second question, I did search through the thread history, and saw a very interesting thread with very interesting contributions by @fatherjimparker , @Albion and other members, but I saw no discussion of any attempt by the Roman Catholics to redefine the ten commandments. On this point I consider that most members outside of certain groups of devotees of an extremely "liberal" or more accurately postmodern theology or certain unconventional groups that would in most cases be non-Nicene per se, would agree that it is improper for Christian churches to intentionally manipulate scriptural texts for whatever reason, and whereas we have had in this thread what I think can be regarded as a healthy and interesting debate on canons, no one is accusing anyone of having malignantly tampered with the text per se in the manner you suggest.

For myself, I find it a bit amusing that a Protestant accuses a traditional Church of changing Scripture. Apparently the scam is so comprehensive that we somehow stretched it back to the 1,500 years prior to the Protestant Deformation.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

By the same token why not the Shepherd of Hermas? The text is brilliant and deserves to be read again in the Church.

 

[Albion]

I did just now notice this post of yours, and I do feel obliged to state, for the record, that I do object to being described as a member of a "Catholic church" according to a definition that would include the Orthodox with the RCs and Assyrians as a group and exclude Anglicans.

Well, that's the way it is. "Catholic" refers to one set of churches, "Protestant" to another. This is a very standard way of classifying church bodies. It's nothing that originated with me and, incidentally, was the system used by the US Government until fairly recently for members of the military. That's been enlarged recently, but the system or something close to it is still widely used.

There are many within each category and they are separated by certain basics that we often fight over on these forums--faith vs works, scripture vs tradition, etc. and your church is clearly on the same side as the RCC and EO with all of them. We ought to recognize that there are differences, just as we understand that a Baptist and a Lutheran are not identical in beliefs or practices.

As a matter of fact, it could be said that it's because I do recognize the differences among the various Catholic churches that I can appreciate the similarities, too.

 

[Albion]

For myself, I find it a bit amusing that a Protestant accuses a traditional Church of changing Scripture. Apparently the scam is so comprehensive that we somehow stretched it back to the 1,500 years prior to the Protestant Deformation.

Great. You did succeed in working in "amusing," "traditional church," "scam" and even a corruption of the term "Protestant Reformation." The other members of your RCIA class must be soooo proud.

 

[hedrick]

If wgw’s objection is to the exclusion of Anglicans from “Catholic,” I think his position can be defended. The difficulty with Anglicans is that the split was not originally theological, and historically as well as today, there are varying understandings of what it means to be Anglican. There are people who are clearly Protestant and people who are clearly (in the sense under discussion) Catholic in the communion. The community has maintained a continuity of bishops that would support a Catholic view for those who choose to take it. This seems to have been intentional.

 

[Albion]

If wgw’s objection is to the exclusion of Anglicans from “Catholic,” I think his position can be defended.

Of course it could be defended. But it's not clear where Anglicanism ought to be placed in this two-fold system, so while that could be "defended," it would be just as easy to defend a decision to omit it from that category.

Wgw's point, however, appears to me clearly to be about the placement of his own denomination/communion. It's certainly a Catholic church, but I suppose he is offended that it usually doesn't get much in the way of a specific recognition.

 

[Wgw]

By the same token why not the Shepherd of Hermas? The text is brilliant and deserves to be read again in the Church.

Not according to St. Athanasius, although if memory serves he does authorize its use catechtically. The main argument against the Shepherd was that it was not authentically apostolic but was rather a Patristic work of devotional literature, worthy of being read in the same way the Epistles of St. Ignatius are worthy of being read. Which is to say, for purposes of edification as opposed to liturgy.

 

[Albion]

Not according to St. Athanasius, although if memory serves he does authorize its use catechtically. The main argument against the Shepherd was that it was not authentically apostolic but was rather a Patristic work of devotional literature, worthy of being read in the same way the Epistles of St. Ignatius are worthy of being read. Which is to say, for purposes of edification as opposed to liturgy.

Good point. It's not enough to say that the book is brilliant or that it deserves to be read. There are lots of inspirational works, but that doesn't mean they should be considered to be revelation.

 

[Wgw]

Of course it could be defended. But it's not clear where Anglicanism ought to be placed in this two-fold system, so while that could be "defended," it would be just as easy to defend a decision to omit it from that category.

Wgw's point, however, appears to me clearly to be about the placement of his own denomination/communion. It's certainly a Catholic church, but I suppose he is offended that it usually doesn't get much in the way of a specific recognition.

We are Catholic, but in a manner ontologically different from Roman Catholicism; in many respects, the Church of England and the Church of Sweden (which has "apostolic succession" according to an RC sense of the term, like the C of E) and certain other episcopal bodies are closer to us than the RCC sue primarily to the lack of a Papal ecclesiology and certain unusual RC doctrines which have been promulgated since the 18th century.

There is obviously a difference in terms of the number of sacraments enumerated.

Interestingly, the Scottish Episcopal and certain Swedish liturgies are the closest things one might find to us in the West due to the incorporation of an epiclesis in the anaphora or Eucharistic prayer.

The problem with your view is that whereas it is flattering for us to be called Catholic, it is also dated (it is not common or well understood to refer to Eastern Orthodox as "Greek Catholic" for instance, even though this used to be the case, e.g. the Russian Greek Catholic Church referred for a time to Russian Orthodoxy, later to Carpatho-Rusyn parishes that broke off communion with Rome). On this website, where I very frequently find myself dealing with belligerent non-Trinitarians and other persons of extreme views who like to accuse Orthodox and mainstream Protestants of being Catholic, in the sense of being Roman Catholic, it has the effect of potentially enabling such confusion in a manner detrimental to both Anglican and Orthodox interests.

Lastly I expect many high churchmen, not to mention Anglo Catholics, ranging from Percy Deamer types through the full St. Magnus the Martyr set, might well object vigorously to your invocation of this dichotomy in such a way.

 

[Wgw]

Good point. It's not enough to say that the book is brilliant or that it deserves to be read. There are lots of inspirational works, but that doesn't mean they should be considered to be revelation.

I agree, and in general the view of most people is that the Shepherd is primarily allegorical as opposed to literal. Which does not make it misleading or heretical in the manner of say, Gnostic texts which require extremely careful handling. I do not regard it as "apocrypha" per se, in that it is not clear that it ever pretended to be scripture in the manner of several Gnostic texts, for example, The Gospel of Thomas.

 

[Albion]

The problem with your view is that whereas it is flattering for us to be called Catholic, it is also dated (it is not common or well understood to refer to Eastern Orthodox as "Greek Catholic" for instance, even though this used to be the case, e.g. the Russian Greek Catholic Church referred for a time to Russian Orthodoxy, later to Carpatho-Rusyn parishes that broke off communion with Rome).

It's not "my view" particularly. It's the most common and traditional way of sorting Christian denominations. I merely made use of it.

There are several newer five-way or six-way categories that are sometimes used, including by the United Nations, but you're not going to find them or many others that give a special nod to the Oriental Orthodox churches that you would like to see.

 

[Wgw]

It's not "my view" particularly. It's the most common and traditional way of sorting Christian denominations. I merely made use of it.

There are several newer, five-way or six-way divisions, that are sometimes used, including by the United Nations, but you're not going to find them or many others that give the recognition to the Oriental Orthodox churches that you would like to see.

I am entirely content with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox being grouped together, even with the Assyrians. We should simply not be regarded as in an ontological category with RCs per the EO Ecumenical Patriarch.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am just wondering why you call yourself "father" when Jesus said "
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
I am also wondering what gives the Catholic church the right to change God's 10 commandments?

First, what do you call your parent? It's not that Jim calls himself Father! It's what others call him.

Secondly, what does your second question have to do with the subject? But to answer, the Catholic Church has not changed the 10 Commandments.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Not according to St. Athanasius, although if memory serves he does authorize its use catechtically. The main argument against the Shepherd was that it was not authentically apostolic but was rather a Patristic work of devotional literature, worthy of being read in the same way the Epistles of St. Ignatius are worthy of being read. Which is to say, for purposes of edification as opposed to liturgy.

Iraneaus quoted the text as Scripture as did Origen of Alexandria who attributed it to the Hermas mentioned in Rom 16.14. Eusebius mentions that it was being used in some liturgies. It was part of the canon of the Codex Sinaiticus. Just as I would opt for a later date of the Muratorian fragment so I'd be inclined towards an early date of the Shepherd, somewhere before 85CE.

You're correct that the text was Patristic rather than Apostolic, but by the same token so is the Apocalypse: John of Patmos is a different figure to the John the Apostle and Hebrews is an anonymous homily...

 

[Wgw]

Iraneaus quoted the text as Scripture as did Origen of Alexandria who attributed it to the Hermas mentioned in Rom 16.14. Eusebius mentions that it was being used in some liturgies. It was part of the canon of the Codex Sinaiticus. Just as I would opt for a later date of the Muratorian fragment so I'd be inclined towards an early date of the Shepherd, somewhere before 85CE.

You're correct that the text was Patristic rather than Apostolic, but by the same token so is the Apocalypse: John of Patmos is a different figure to the John the Apostle and Hebrews is an anonymous homily...

This is all highly debateable. The Orthodox and most Patristic figures regarded St. John the Apostle as being St. John of Patmos, with some exceptions (hence the controversy about its inclusion).