Bible question for Protestants

[JamesTheJust]

Look up Eusebius, St. Jerome, Cardinal Cajeton, and Erasmus.

St Jerome accepted the deuterocanon:
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html?m=1

Erasmus included the deuterocanonicals in the canon in his Explanation of the Apostles’ Creed, written in 1533.

You’re left with Cajetan, who was obviously not a Father, and Eusebius.

Tell me if they were “heretics.”

Eusebius was writing before the Councils of Rome, Hippo, andCarthage, so no.

I suppose that Cajetan was a semi-heretic, in the barest sense of the term.

The disputed books have been disputed since the beginning of His church.

If you reject every doctrine that even a single Father disputed, you’d be left with none. There’s no issue on which the Fathers universally agreed, which is why we go with a consensus.

 

[JamesTheJust]

We can add to this list the similar canon of none other than St. Athanasius the Great, contra mundum…

St Athanasius accepted the deuterocanon:
thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-athanasius-reject-deuterocanon.html?m=1

 

[steido01]

Eusebius was writing before the Councils of Rome, Hippo, andCarthage, so no.

And Luther was before Trent.

I suppose that Cajetan was a semi-heretic, in the barest sense of the term.

If you reject every doctrine that even a single Father disputed, you’d be left with none. There’s no issue on which the Fathers universally agreed, which is why we go with a consensus.

 

[JamesTheJust]

And Luther was before Trent.

I’m sure you know that the deuterocanon wasn’t the only thing on which Luther and the Church disagreed. He was condemned countless times for his views.

https://imgur.com/jiFfM

I suppose a picture of a double facepalm refutes truth?

If you don’t actually respond, we can’t have an intelligent discussion. I’ve pointed out that the only Father whom you can use to defend yourself is Eusebius, who was writing before Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. Would you mind countering that statement, or do you prefer to argue using memes?

 

[JamesTheJust]

That unity comes via a council. Perhaps this is the reason there has never been a universally accepted canon of scripture?

Those Councils were Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. After they were approved by Damasus I, and issued to the East by Innocent I, no Fathers propose a different canon.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m currently reading the DC’s. I didn’t find anything in Judith that I objected to doctrinally, and Wisdom, so far, seems wonderful.
So, it seems that if the issue was doctrine for Luther, he would have kept Judith and Wisdom. Not only that, he included the Prayer of Manasseh in his Bible. He must have really liked it, but I don’t think he “declared” it canonical (not that he had the power to do so).
The argument that Luther “excluded” the DC’s because of doctrinal disagreement would have to include one dispute on his part for each book.

Jon

Yeah,

I believe he simply noticed the Jewish people did not use it so he decided not to. But with the NT he definitely had his opinions about some books. But it’s sort of a mute point since they stayed in his Bible.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I suppose that Cajetan was a semi-heretic, in the barest sense of the term.

This was poorly phrased. What is meant by this statement is that, though Cajetan was not a Father, and he disagreed with (what would later become infallible) doctrine, the charge of heretic would be incorrect to use against him.

 

[JonNC]

Those Councils were Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. After they were approved by Damasus I, and issued to the East by Innocent I, no Fathers propose a different canon.

They were local synods, not ecumenical councils, of which there have been 7.

Respectfully, I disagree.
bible-researcher.com/canon8.html
Jon

 

[steido01]

This was poorly phrased. What is meant by this statement is that, though Cajetan was not a Father, and he disagreed with (what would later become infallible) doctrine, the charge of heretic would be incorrect to use against him.

Correct. That’s what I was meme-ing to you.

It is wrong to label Cajetan a heretic, just as it is wrong to label Luther a heretic solely based on the issue of the canon. And since Luther died before Trent even codified a canon, he can hardly be held accountable to it.

 

[Novocastrian]

St Athanasius accepted the deuterocanon:
thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-athanasius-reject-deuterocanon.html?m=1

That’s a weak reading of Athanasius.

He doesn’t have the same canon as either 39-book protestants, nor does he have the canon endorsed by Rome; many of the books Rome considers canonical are clearly classified as uncanonical by Athanasius.

 

[JamesTheJust]

They were local synods, not ecumenical councils, of which there have been 7.

And among those is Nicaea II, correct? There’s an article you should read about that Council:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.php

Respectfully, I disagree.
bible-researcher.com/canon8.html
Jon

The only source there that denies the current Catholic canon after 405 and was written by a Father (Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae was a forgery, as the site admits) is that of John of Damascus. However, he also includes some non-canonical writings of Clement which neither of us accept.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Correct. That’s what I was meme-ing to you.

It is wrong to label Cajetan a heretic, just as it is wrong to label Luther a heretic solely based on the issue of the canon. And since Luther died before Trent even codified a canon, he can hardly be held accountable to it.

Ah, I see. However, he can still be classified as a heretic, at least from the Catholic perspective, for his other views, which he held in constant defiance of Church authorities.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That’s a weak reading of Athanasius.

He doesn’t have the same canon as either 39-book protestants, nor does he have the canon endorsed by Rome; many of the books Rome considers canonical are clearly classified as uncanonical by Athanasius.

Sources? If you’re still talking about his 39th Festal Epistle, the article refuted that.

Even if we concede Athanasius (which I don’t), that’s only two Fathers.

 

[JonNC]

And among those is Nicaea II, correct? There’s an article you should read about that Council:
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.php

The only source there that denies the current Catholic canon after 405 and was written by a Father (Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae was a forgery, as the site admits) is that of John of Damascus. However, he also includes some non-canonical writings of Clement which neither of us accept.

From the article:

There is nothing in the canons (that is, official pronouncements) of Nicaea II that specifically affirms the canon of Carthage. Nicaea II’s objective was to condemn the Iconoclast heresy and to put down the errors associated with it. The Council’s acceptance of the Carthaginian canon was done as a “side-bar” issue, and we only know about it because Byzantine clerics speak about it in their correspondences as an issue that was settled at the Council.

Lutherans stand by the condemnation of Iconoclasm.
Clearly, the council did not settle the canon of scripture for the Church Catholic, as the Orthodox have larger ones.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Sources? If you’re still talking about his 39th Festal Epistle, the article refutes that.

Even if we concede Athanasius (which I don’t), that’s only two Fathers.

I’ve read the article, and it doesn’t refute it. It tries to fudge the issue. I’m an Anglican, I can recognise a fudge…

The fact is that Athanasius clearly marks off a deuterocanon, which is not to be considered properly canonical. You can say that he is wrong - indeed, this is the only intellectually honest position a Roman Catholic can take on Festal XXXIX - but you can’t deny that he says it!

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

They are good, and to be read by the Church; they are not the work of heretics. But they are not part of his canon proper.

 

[JamesTheJust]

From the article:

Lutherans stand by the condemnation of Iconoclasm.
Clearly, the council did not settle the canon of scripture for the Church Catholic, as the Orthodox have larger ones.

Jon

Did you only read the first sentence? Here’s the second:

The Council’s acceptance of the Carthaginian canon was done as a “side-bar” issue, and we only know about it because Byzantine clerics speak about it in their correspondences as an issue that was settled at the Council.

As I’ve said before, the Orthodox deviated from Tradition. Their excuse for this is the Quinisext Council, also known as the Council in Trullo, a synod comprised entirely of Eastern bishops which condemned many Western practices (which both Lutherans and Catholics use) and was never approved by the Pope. The Council ratified many different canons of Scripture, and the Orthodox argue that it was ecumenical, though it was not.

 

[JonNC]

Sources? If you’re still talking about his 39th Festal Epistle, the article refuted that.

Even if we concede Athanasius (which I don’t), that’s only two Fathers.

Origen? Jerome?

How about Rufinus?

But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not “canonical” but “ecclesiastical” by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.

Jon

 

[JamesTheJust]

Origen?

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/origen-and-canon-of-old-testament/

Jerome?

See post #61.

How about Rufinus?

His Old Testament canon doesn’t explicitly include Lamentations. Probably, like most of the other Fathers we’ve considered, he uses the LXX version of Jeremiah, which contains Lamentations, the Epistle of Jeremy (Baruch 6), and in many cases, the rest of Baruch. If he meant the Hebrew version of Jeremiah, he’s a book short (Lamentations) of the Protestant canon. If he meant the Greek version of Jeremiah, he’s got all or part of Baruch as well. Either way, this isn’t a perfect Protestant canon.
Rufinus employed a three-tiered structure: “canonical,” “ecclesiastical,” and “apocryphal.” Canonical were those books “which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.” Apocrypha were “which they would not have read in the churches.” He doesn’t define Ecclesiastical books. In his list of Ecclesiastical books, he doesn’t include Baruch or Lamentations. So he either thought they were totally apocryphal (unlikely), or considered them canonical.

 

[JonNC]

=JamesTheJust;11624443]Did you only read the first sentence? Here’s the second:

That first sentence sets the framework and context for the entire article.

As I’ve said before, the Orthodox deviated from Tradition. Their excuse for this is the Quinisext Council, also known as the Council in Trullo, a synod comprised entirely of Eastern bishops which condemned many Western practices (which both Lutherans and Catholics use) and was never approved by the Pope. The Council ratified many different canons of Scripture, and the Orthodox argue that it was ecumenical, though it was not.

I wouldn’t argue Trullo to be ecumenical, for the same reason as those of the west after the 7th.
From a Lutheran perspective, there has never been an ecumenical council define the canon of scripture. We don’t deny the importance of the local synods, but they were not ecumenical, and the early Church and Fathers expressed differing views of the canon. We take into consider all of this, and handle books accordingly.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/origen-and-canon-of-old-testament/

See post #61.

His Old Testament canon doesn’t explicitly include Lamentations. Probably, like most of the other Fathers we’ve considered, he uses the LXX version of Jeremiah, which contains Lamentations, the Epistle of Jeremy (Baruch 6), and in many cases, the rest of Baruch. If he meant the Hebrew version of Jeremiah, he’s a book short (Lamentations) of the Protestant canon. If he meant the Greek version of Jeremiah, he’s got all or part of Baruch as well. Either way, this isn’t a perfect Protestant canon.
Rufinus employed a three-tiered structure: “canonical,” “ecclesiastical,” and “apocryphal.” Canonical were those books “which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.” Apocrypha were “which they would not have read in the churches.” He doesn’t define Ecclesiastical books. In his list of Ecclesiastical books, he doesn’t include Baruch or Lamentations. So he either thought they were totally apocryphal (unlikely), or considered them canonical.

I wasn’t looking to support a “perfect protestant canon”, but only to respond to your claim that virtually all the Church Fathers support the canon of Rome. One can assume from Ecclesiastical he means read in the Church, used to teach the faithful.

The issue remains; there has not been a universally approved canon, the Reformation notwithstanding.

Jon

EDIT: the link in post 61 certainly provides the Catholic view. Nothing wrong with that, but just saying.

Jon