Are Protestants preaching false doctrine/Blasphemy?

[dronald]

No he is not…the first part of the quote you provided, he is citing Jerome.

Gregory the Great - “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. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

Some clarification would be wonderful.

 

[Jon_S_1]

pablope;10941885:

I think you’ve convinced me.

Can you explain to me why Jerome was against these books?

My understanding is that Jerome, who spent a lot of time in the Holy Land, noticed that the Jews had largely stopped using the Septuagint for religious purposes and as such did not use the Septuagint as Scripture. Not fully understanding why, his recommendation was to separate it out. After much additional study and consultation with the Magesterium, he understood the complexities and why it should be included and then did in fact include it in the vulgate and affirmed it as scripture. Jerome was simply processing his own course of study.

Jerome was not against the books, in fact there are many sermons of Jerome’s that reference the deuterocanonical books.

Here are a few more quotes from St Jerome:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]“Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

“Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above–that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen–teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil … therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.”
7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN”— Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

 

[dronald]

dronald;10941967:

My understanding is that Jerome, who spent a lot of time in the Holy Land, noticed that the Jews had largely stopped using the Septuagint for religious purposes and as such did not use the Septuagint as Scripture. Not fully understanding why, his recommendation was to separate it out. After much additional study and consultation with the Magesterium, he understood the complexities and why it should be included and then did in fact include it in the vulgate and affirmed it as scripture. Jerome was simply processing his own course of study.

Jerome was not against the books, in fact there are many sermons of Jerome’s that reference the deuterocanonical books.

Here are a few more quotes from St Jerome:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]“Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

“Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above–that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen–teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil … therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.”
7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN”— Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

Beautiful.

I am still awaiting on some clarification on why a Pope would call one of the stories in a deuterocanonical book non canonical.

Perhaps it is a translation error. I honestly don’t know yet.

 

[Jon_S_1]

pablope;10941885:

Gregory the Great - “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. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

Some clarification would be wonderful.

This is from a very detailed and thorough website on this issue and there is much more regarding this topic. This below hopefully answers enough of your question but there is a tremendous amount of information that I would encourage you to read through here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

St. Gregory the Great, Pope, [590-604, A.D.]

Between 578 and 595 AD, in “The Moral Teaching”, St. Gregory wrote the following on what is ‘canonical’. He wrote this, or at least began this work (with no notes dividing the time he was in Rome from the time from Constantinople), according to the notes of Rev. James Barmby, in NPNF2, Vol. 12, Prolegomena p. XV, from Constantinople (prior to assuming the role of Pope). Thus, he is speaking of the canon from Constantinople where he was located. The following says that 1st Maccabees is not in ‘the canon.’ Notice he does not say that 1st Maccabees is ‘uninspired’ or not Scripture.

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. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Joseph Gildea, Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991, Part 1, Book 3, p. 126.)
Remember, just because he is terming it non-canonical does not mean it is not Scripture. Again, he began this work in 578 and ended in 595. He began being Pope only in 590 AD and reigned to 601 AD. This book is divided into two parts, with each one having six books. This book is only part one, and only book three. Thus, this passage is done in the first quarter of his whole work, well before he was Pope, where he is in Constantinople, where Maccabees is not part of the canon. As we have seen with other Fathers who did not put these books in their canon, he still refers to these books as Scripture. Notice, even here, while he is in Constantinople, he does not term it Unscriptural, or uninspired. In Constantinople at the time, he most likely was only speaking of the canon in that area, which only consists of what is read in the Liturgy. The canon that he is speaking of is not the full extent of Scripture, as we saw with St. Athanasius and the other Fathers. Now, to go on to what he thought of the Deuterocanonical books in the very work where the above passage is cited. Did he consider the Deuterocanonical books as Unscriptural, which Protestants who make much hay about the reference to 2nd Maccabees as ‘uncanonical’, assume? Let us check this very work. The following quotes, not found in the Schaff NPNF2 edition, volume 12, which has some of St. Gregory the Great’s writings. I take these quotes from Joseph Gildea, St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing) 1991. I will put the book, part and page number as taken from the book:

Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85.
The former, it is said by Holy Scripture: Do not become like the horse and the mule which have no understanding (Psalm 31:9). The proud effort of the latter is blamed when it is said: Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability (Sirach 3:22). To the former it is said: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, eveil consupiscence (Col. 3:5), to the latter it is said: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceipt (Col. 2:8) St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Book 1, Part 3, 21, p. 116
Here is the same book and same part (Book 1, Part 3) as the mentioned quote which some Protestants will use to say that St. Gregory denies the Scriptural status of Maccabees. However, in the very same part of the same book, St. Gregory calls Sirach Scripture. Sirach is ‘Scripture bearing witness.’ Maccabees is in the very same category of books as Sirach on every list known to us. Not only does Scripture bear witness, but he affirms this even more when he teaches on morals, that Sirach is termed ‘Holy Scripture’ in the very same category as Psalms and Colossians. These two passages in and of themselves give further evidence that St. Gregory clearly shows that when he speaks of uncanonical, that does not mean that the book is ‘unscriptural.’ On the contrary, St. Gregory positively affirms Sirach, the very same category of books from which Maccabees comes, as Scripture.

 

[dronald]

dronald;10941967:

This is from a very detailed and thorough website on this issue and there is much more regarding this topic. This below hopefully answers enough of your question but there is a tremendous amount of information that I would encourage you to read through here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

St. Gregory the Great, Pope, [590-604, A.D.]

Between 578 and 595 AD, in “The Moral Teaching”, St. Gregory wrote the following on what is ‘canonical’. He wrote this, or at least began this work (with no notes dividing the time he was in Rome from the time from Constantinople), according to the notes of Rev. James Barmby, in NPNF2, Vol. 12, Prolegomena p. XV, from Constantinople (prior to assuming the role of Pope). Thus, **he is speaking of the canon from Constantinople where he was located. **The following says that 1st Maccabees is not in ‘the canon.’ Notice he does not say that 1st Maccabees is ‘uninspired’ or not Scripture.

Interesting. Do you have any information on why it wouldn’t have been in the canon from Constantinople?

Edit: So sometimes Canon only meant what was read in the liturgy?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S;10942046:

Interesting. Do you have any information on why it wouldn’t have been in the canon from Constantinople?

I will look more into it because I am interested too. The canon had just been decided at Carthage a hundred years prior. And things did not move quickly back then. An email took weeks or months to get from one place to the other

My guess is that Constantinople had an affinity to not using the deuterocanonicals in the canon prior to Carthage, and it took a while for the whole church to get on the same page. No doubt, dissenting bishops at Carthage went home and drug their feet about implementing certain things.

So just a guess, but I will look more into it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon S;10942046:

\

Edit: So sometimes Canon only meant what was read in the liturgy?

yes that is exactly what the Canon means. Those are the books affirmed to be read in church during mass. It is not necessarily all of the inspired books, although I do not see why anyone would withhold an inspired book from the canon other than it was perhaps in dispute. I know Revelation, hebrews, james, and 2 and 3 John were highly contested in regard to the NT canon. The fact that they were disputed makes them no less scriptural today, nor would the fact that the second century church held 20 books in the canon, mean that the 4th century church could not affirm 27 books as canonical. Which in some areas is exactly what happened.

Interesting enough 1st and 2nd Clement almost made it into the New Testament.

 

[dronald]

What about this by St John of Damascus:

John of Damascus - "Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven…And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the frirst and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.

Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther.
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" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of
Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII).

Written about 730 bible-researcher.com/johnofdamascus.html

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is important to take context in everything as im sure you have seen thus far. From that same web link I left earlier:

It is true the list of books that he gives does not include the Deuterocanonicals and only two of them are mentioned, Wisdom and Sirach. It is also true that even the canon of the New Testament (if seen as only being the list of Scritptures) is incorrect. He gives a list of the ‘canon of the holy apostles by Clement’. This in all likelihood is the Didache. Thus, the books in the list are not meant to be limited to Scriptures that are accepted. That book obviously is not a New Testament book that are not recognized by anybody as Scripture. However, we see that in the Schaff edition, volume nine, St. John of Damascus gives twelve references to Deuterocanonical texts.
And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God (Jn 1:14, Tit. 3:4) in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and "after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, (Bar. 3:37) worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVI, NPNF2, p. 88
This is in the very same book 4, on the ‘Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’. Chapter XVII where he gives the list of Scriptures which did not include the Deuterocanonicals. St. John of Damascus doesn’t even mention Baruch and other books in the Deuterocanonicals though in passing he speaks of Wisdom and Sirach. However, in Chapter XVI (which is only one page before Chapter XVII. where he gave the list that Webster referred to), he refers to Biblical events and in speaking of Jesus, he refers to Baruch in description of Jesus. Baruch obviously prophecies about how Jesus would come to dwell among men. The background is St. John proving that the use of images is Ok. The basis for it becoming Ok is when Jesus became man. He writes that the Old Testament did not use images much, but per a prophecy of Baruch 3 fulfilled in Jesus, the situation would change.

So before he gave the list of Scriptures in Chapter XVII of this book, St. John refers to a text in Baruch to establish doctrine on images in Chapter XVI. In Chapter XVIII, (approximately 1 page after giving the list of Scriptures that seem to exclude the Deuterocanonicals,) St. John again refers to Baruch right in the midst of other Biblical passages.

Some, again, have a prophetic sense, and of these some are in the future tense: for instance, He shall come openly, (Psalm 50:3) and this from Zechariah, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, (Zech. 9:9) and this from Micah, (Mic. 1:3) Behold, the Lord cometh out of His place and will came down and tread upon the high places of the earth. But others, though future, are put in the past tense, as, for instance, This is our God: “Therefore He was seen upon the earth and dwell among men,” (Baruch 3:37) and The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works (Prov. 8:22), and Wherefore God, thy God, anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, and such like. (Psalm 14:7) St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVII, NPNF, p. 90
Here St. John is showing how there are Scriptures in the Old Testament that speak of Jesus and how he fulfills them, some in the past tense, and some in the Prophetic sense. He quotes Zechariah, Micah, Proverbs, Psalms and right in the midst of all these Scriptures, he quotes Baruch again in the same fashion.
The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God’s hand’ [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them."

St. John Damascene directly quotes Wisdom as 'the Divine Scripture". The explicit citation of Wisdom as Divine Scripture needs very little comment. God clearly speaks through the book of Wisdom as Divine Scripture.
But others, though future, are put in the past tense, as, for instance, This is our God: ‘Therefore He[she] was seen upon the earth and dwell among men’ [Baruch 3:38]. John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:18 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:90
St. John Damascene quotes Baruch as an explanation of who God is.
It appears then that the most proper of all the names given to God is “He that is,” as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, He that is hath sent Me (Ex. 3:14). For He keeps all being in His own embrace, like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, “He that is good.” For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.
The second name of God is o qeos, derived from qeein, to run, because He courses through all things, or from aiqein, to burn: For God is a fire consuming all evils (Deut. 4:24): or from qeasqai, because He is all-seeing (2 Macc. 9:5): for nothing can escape Him, and over all He keepeth watch. For He saw all things before they were, holding them timelessly in His thoughts; and each one conformably to His voluntary anti timeless thought, which constitutes predetermination and image and pattern, comes into existence at the predetermined time.

Another supposed witness to deny the Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonicals proves again that the ‘canon’ spoken of is not the full list of Scriptures. A Deuterocanonical book is called Divine Scripture. It is called to be written by a ‘prophet’ Baruch, in the same book and immediate chapters where St. John excluded these books from the canon. Deuterocanonical books again establish doctrine on the essence of God as it shows his omniscience.

 

[pablope]

St Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus, after the Council of Rome which defined the canon prior to Carthage, to translate the writings to Latin. He went to Jerusalem to do this task.

Most of the time, he cites Jews for their opinions of some books, I think this is where some misunderstanding of Jerome occurs. He also stated that :he submits to the judgement of the churches:…alot of times, this is omitted by those who cite Jerome.

Anyway, here are some links about Jerome and the DC books:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

The second point takes various forms. Sometimes, they’ll cut right to Jerome, while othertimes, the argument will be presented as if the speaker knows of someone prominent Church Father besides Jerome who felt this way. Occassionally, you’ll even hear that “the early Church” rejected these books, but that’s just untrue. In fact, if you read what Jerome actually says on the subject, you’ll quickly realize that he acknowledged his own view as (a) the minority view, (b) opposed to the Church’s view, and (c) possibly wrong, even sinfully so. The best evidence for this comes in his book Against Rufinus.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/06/deuterocanon-curious-case-of-jerome.html

Gregory the Great - “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. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

Some clarification would be wonderful

This is probably part of a larger work…so it may take time.

 

[pablope]

Jon S;10942046:

Interesting. Do you have any information on why it wouldn’t have been in the canon from Constantinople?

Edit: So sometimes Canon only meant what was read in the liturgy?

Keep in mind…the reason for establishing a canon was to have a standard set of readings for the Mass.

This is what Trent says: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.”

 

[steve_b]

A debate I keep finding myself in with my protestant acquaintances is what they call the “Apocrypha”. In my opinion, if all 73 books are Divinely inspired, then they are without error. What gives anyone ANY authority to remove even one word from the scripture, let alone add a word to alter the scripture??? Isn’t the unpardonable sin Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t referring to Divinely Inspired scripture as irrelevant or erroneous be going against the Holy Spirit, therefore blasphemy? And what I don’t understand is Sola Scripture as the center of belief yet, excluding the work of the 7 books removed from the Bible. That seems to contradict itself… going by scripture alone yet, the scripture they are so steadily rooted in is incomplete. . . . . . . .

This is an old book but useful in this discussion you’re having.
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[Arizona_Mike]

John C. Wright, the science fiction author (and Catholic convert) just started an interesting series of articles on his blog on why he chose Catholicism (as opposed to a Protestant denomination) as his faith when he abandoned his atheism. He goes into some detail on why canonicity is such an issue in his conversion to Catholicism.

His website: scifiwright.com/

The posted articles thus far:

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-part-one-on-authority/

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-part-two-the-parable-of-the-messengers/

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-three-on-the-magisterium/

From the last article:

The third point that convinced me of the truth of the Catholic claims is the paradox of accepting the canon of scripture while rejecting the teaching authority, that is to say, the Magisterium, of the Church. This is asserting an infallible scripture was canonized by a fallible Church; or again that an authorized scripture was authorized by an unauthorized Church.

…]

In sum, the Protestant argument suffers from a crucial and fatal defect: You cannot take the Christian Bible as the sole authority from which to judge what Christians should and should not believe, and then argue that the Christians have no authority to interpret the Bible, no authority to write the Bible, no authority to say which books are authoritative and which are not. The stark fact is that the Bible has no authority outside the authority the Church, acting on her own authority, grants to the Bible.

The Bible cannot witness to its own truth. The only logical reason to accept the Bible as true is to accept it on the witness of the Church that wrote, compiled and sanctified it. If you think the Church is filled with liars and idolaters and that the Pope is the Antichrist, then you have no grounds to think that any documents produced by the Church are not the documents of liars and idolaters and antichrists.

But suppose it were not so. Suppose Luther had the authority to rewrite and re-edit the Bible. In that case, the Bible cannot be the sole and final authority on matters of Christian doctrine: Luther himself is. But Luther did not heal the sick and raise the dead and do the other mighty works which prophets routinely perform in order to show a divine sanction supports their words. He can simply give no warrant for such a claim of authority.

 

[steve_b]

John C. Wright, the science fiction author (and Catholic convert) just started an interesting series of articles on his blog on why he chose Catholicism (as opposed to a Protestant denomination) as his faith when he abandoned his atheism. He goes into some detail on why canonicity is such an issue in his conversion to Catholicism.

His website: scifiwright.com/

The posted articles thus far:

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-part-one-on-authority/

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-part-two-the-parable-of-the-messengers/

scifiwright.com/2013/07/a-universal-apology-three-on-the-magisterium/

From the last article:

“The third point that convinced me of the truth of the Catholic claims is the paradox of accepting the canon of scripture while rejecting the teaching authority, that is to say, the Magisterium, of the Church. This is asserting an infallible scripture was canonized by a fallible Church; or again that an authorized scripture was authorized by an unauthorized Church.”

[snip]

R.C. Sproul a Protestant authority and PhD, said it this way. “We ( i.e Protestants) have a fallible collection of infallible books” sheesh! I wonder if he regrets saying that?

 

[danieljokeefe]

A debate I keep finding myself in with my protestant acquaintances is what they call the “Apocrypha”. In my opinion, if all 73 books are Divinely inspired, then they are without error. What gives anyone ANY authority to remove even one word from the scripture, let alone add a word to alter the scripture??? Isn’t the unpardonable sin Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t referring to Divinely Inspired scripture as irrelevant or erroneous be going against the Holy Spirit, therefore blasphemy? And what I don’t understand is Sola Scripture as the center of belief yet, excluding the work of the 7 books removed from the Bible. That seems to contradict itself… going by scripture alone yet, the scripture they are so steadily rooted in is incomplete. . . . . . . .

hello-- can you be more specific as to what you view as Protestants?

as this is a protestant “bashing” forum–

and as i review the other threads and postings-

• it appears that protestants-- also include – Pentecostal, Evangelical, Lutheran, Calvinist,
  Baptist, church of Christ-
• also included denomination that include sensationalists, where no miracles are for -today, that they died out with the last apostles…

so i have no idea what scripture understanding to evaluate when some on on this forum says –

what do you think of the protestants and the gazillion denomination ??

Especally because the pope has said – that there is salvation and the hop of heaven – available out side of the catholic religion system??

 

[RaiseMeUp]

Pentecostal

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;10941954]In my 30 years as a Protestant I never heard the Apochrypha mentioned once in church. Never an acknowledgement of its existence. I am glad to hear you find it beneficial reading because the pastors of the churches I grew up in would probably disagree. There is nothing wrong with having a “legendary tale with a good lesson in it” in the Bible…Jesus used quite a few of them.

If, Jon, you sang “Now Thank We All Our God”, then the Apocrypha was indeed mentioned.

Now thank we all our God                 
With heart and hands and voices,          
Who wondrous things hath done,      
In whom His world rejoices;                  
Who, from our mother’s 
Hath blessed us on our way             
With countless gifts of love,                  
And still is ours today.

.

So if someone can show me how they get there 27 books of the NT without the Catholic Church and/or without them being listed side by side with the deuterocanonicals, I would love to see such evidence.

Can’t be done. While inspired by God, we receive the scripture via the Church.
, And the Church has never been unanimous on the canon. The books of scripture have always been either universally attested, or disputed.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

hello-- can you be more specific as to what you view as Protestants?
as this is a protestant “bashing” forum–

All these forums are discussion forums.
d:

and as i review the other threads and postings-

• it appears that protestants-- also include – Pentecostal, Evangelical, Lutheran, Calvinist,
  Baptist, church of Christ-

Protestants are those groups that came out of the Protestant revolt from the Catholic Church in the 16th century…and in extension all their offshoots down to today. All the groups you list are Protesestant.
d:

so i have no idea what scripture understanding to evaluate when some on on this forum says –

what do you think of the protestants and the gazillion denomination ??

Jesus started His Church in the 1st century. All His promises He deposited in His Church [Matthew 16:16-19 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 16) of which Peter is given the keys. He won’t tolerate division of any kind from His Church or in His Church [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) . That goes for the Orthodox who divided from the Catholic Church the chair of Peter, and that goes for the 10’s of thousand’s of Protestant groups that came out of the Protestant revolt. Division from the Catholic Church , was condemned in the 1st century [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) , [Galatians 5:19-21 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Galatians Chapter 5) , as it is in the 11th century, the 16th century, today, as it is for all eternity.

And notice in Romans and Galatians, what happens to the soul who divides from the Church and remains divided? As you will see below [846 (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3EpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) , scripture is clear on those who put themselves outside the Catholic Church.
d:

Especally because the pope has said – that there is salvation and the hope of heaven – available outside of the catholic religion system??

The Church states it this way from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) all emphasis mine.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Note: the caveot ( the escape clause if you will) revolves around

• what a person “knows”,
• And “through no fault of their own”

iow, if one doesn’t know, and that person’s ignorance is innocent, they played no role in that ignorance, and not due to any fault of their own, then that is the person that passage [846 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) is not aimed at.

If otoh one took little or no effort to learn what they needed to learn, or purposefully avoided learning the truth because it was inconvenient or they didn’t want to know the truth, or pretended to be ignorant of the truth, then they can’t plead ignorance, their ignorance is their fault. And that passage [846 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) fully applies to them

Note also: When paragraph 847 says “those too may achieve eternal salvation”
may doesn’t mean will achieve salvation. May just means a possibility. For example, I can say it may rain tomorrow. Does that mean it will rain tomorrow? No. It may NOT rain. And if it doesn’t rain tomorrow, I didn’t mispeak. I only said it may rain tomorrow.

 

[steve_b]

Can’t be done. While inspired by God, we receive the scripture via the Church.
, And the Church has never been unanimous on the canon. The books of scripture have always been either universally attested, or disputed.

Jon

I hope Randy doesn’t mind my using his posts this way. The subject came up on another thread. I’ve always used the phrase “the canon we have today is the same as the canon approved in 382 a.d.” Randy added the meat.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11015789&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11015797&postcount=16

 

[alvin123]

Sproul and MacArthur explain praying to Mary - Can you go to heaven

youtu.be/RiKGHzBtl5o

not false doctrine not blasphemy–

not santa claus , and not the easter bunny