Books of the bible different in Hippo from what was declared in Trent? Help please

[Superstar905]

Is this claim accurate? I can’t find the information.

"From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed, if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken). "

 

[papist1]

Not at all. The COUNCIL of Carthage and the COUNCIL of Hippo and the proclamation of pope damasus even earlier in 382 ad were all correct. The fact that the Catholic Church had to actually reaffirm and reiterate the canon of scripture during the opposition of the protesters in the 16th century changes nothing.
The first actual canonical list was given by Pope Damasus in 382 ad and the at Hippo and Carthage in 393ad and 397ad.

The desperate attempts of non catholics to say otherwise is irrelevent as we have the history laid out plainly.

Also, they will say it wasn’t “official” until the 16th century at Trent. The Church was forced to proclaim it as such in defense of what was already being taught, and for the first time, challenged publicly.

hope this helps. peace, papist

 

[Superstar905]

Thanks Papist, now where can I find a link to the books that were declared at those synods and at the council of trent to cross reference?

 

[NotWorthy]

Superstar905:

Is this claim accurate? I can’t find the information.

"From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed, if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken). "

My friend, it is one thing to evangelize and try to convert people to your own faith (as we all believe our Church is right). I respect that!

But it is another thing entirely (and I’m not pointing fingers at you, but at the author of that statement) to use lies and distortions to drive somebody away from their faith. I’m pretty sure that Jesus would never approve and help someone to lie in order to convert anyone.

As a matter of fact, I think its someone else who is famous for using lies and distortions to manipulate people. Please think about that before you ever, EVER use an anti-catholic (or anti-protestant or anti-anything) to aid in evangelizing. In the case of the Catholic Church, you’ll find all of our teachings on-line with the Catholic Catechism. Check your facts, please!

We don’t worship idols or Mary! We don’t sacrifice Jesus again and again during the Mass! We didn’t invent Purgatory, because we feel Jesus’ sacrifice was insufficient! We didn’t invent the Papacy in the 5th century!

Thank you and God Bless!

NotWorthy

 

[geezerbob]

I just googled Council of Hippo. There are plenty of listings. Seek and ye shall find.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It is important to remember the famous Protestant theologian Augustine, who was the only Christian from the time of the death of the last apostle to the time of Martin Luther.

Here is what Augustine said about the books of the Bible:

1. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:

• Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
• one book of Joshua the son of Nun;
• one of Judges;
• one short book called Ruth, …
• next, four books of Kings ie 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], and two of Chronicles …

…

• Job,
• Tobias,
• Esther,
• Judith,
• the two books of Maccabees, and
• the two of Ezra [ie, Ezra & Nehemia]…
• Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and
• three books of Solomon – Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.
• Two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, …
• The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets… the names of these prophets are as follows: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi;
• then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel.

The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:

• Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John;
• fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul – one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews:
• two of Peter;
• three of John;
• one of Jude; and
• one of James;
• one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and
• one of the Revelation of John.

 

[qmvsimp]

Superstar905:

Thanks Papist, now where can I find a link to the books that were declared at those synods and at the council of trent to cross reference?

Here are some helpful links:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807frs.asp
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

I hope this helps. One other thing. Papist generally has a negative conotation among us Catholics. I would be polite for you not to use the term to refer to us, especially on a Catholic forum. Try using Catholic or Roman Catholic. It is the polite Christian thing to do.

 

[Milliardo]

qmvsimp:

I hope this helps. One other thing. Papist generally has a negative conotation among us Catholics. I would be polite for you not to use the term to refer to us, especially on a Catholic forum. Try using Catholic or Roman Catholic. It is the polite Christian thing to do.

I think he is referring to papist1, which is the username of the one who replied to him, and not using it as a derogatory term.

 

[qmvsimp]

Milliardo:

I think he is referring to papist1, which is the username of the one who replied to him, and not using it as a derogatory term.

Yes, you’re right. I feel stupid. Superstar, please accept my apology.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Some of the Books listed might be under their older names. Ex. 1 and 2 Samuel are really 1 and 2 Kings and what we call 1 and 2 Kings today are really 3 and 4 Kings, because all 4 of those books record the Acts of the Kings of Israel all the way up to the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon.

Also, some books are joined. Baruch is considered part of Jeremiah and not a seperate book.

 

[RobNY]

qmvsimp:

Yes, you’re right. I feel stupid. Superstar, please accept my apology.

I did the same double-take when reading it last night. Don’t worry, you aren’t the only one.

 

[NotWorthy]

RobNY:

I did the same double-take when reading it last night. Don’t worry, you aren’t the only one.

Yes, I too had a flame prepared to send it out. I actually did post it. But then I noticed he was referring to Papist1 and was able to edit it out.

NotWorthy

 

[qmvsimp]

You know what the issue is here: Papist1.

Hey Papist1, what are you doing using that name? It is clearly a pegorative term used by Protestants against Catholics.

For the sake of us all, consider changing it (and not to Romanist, please)

 

[Superstar905]

qmvsimp:

Yes, you’re right. I feel stupid. Superstar, please accept my apology.

ha, no worries, to be honest, I thought it was funny. I am Catholic and know the negative connotations of using terms like that, but what could I do, it’s the guys screen name, lol.

 

[Superstar905]

NotWorthy:

My friend, it is one thing to evangelize and try to convert people to your own faith (as we all believe our Church is right). I respect that!

But it is another thing entirely (and I’m not pointing fingers at you, but at the author of that statement) to use lies and distortions to drive somebody away from their faith. I’m pretty sure that Jesus would never approve and help someone to lie in order to convert anyone.

As a matter of fact, I think its someone else who is famous for using lies and distortions to manipulate people. Please think about that before you ever, EVER use an anti-catholic (or anti-protestant or anti-anything) to aid in evangelizing. In the case of the Catholic Church, you’ll find all of our teachings on-line with the Catholic Catechism. Check your facts, please!

We don’t worship idols or Mary! We don’t sacrifice Jesus again and again during the Mass! We didn’t invent Purgatory, because we feel Jesus’ sacrifice was insufficient! We didn’t invent the Papacy in the 5th century!

Thank you and God Bless!

NotWorthy

Hi NotWorthy…to be honest, I don’t know what to make of your post. I’m not espousing anything, except what I found on a website. I hadn’t had time to go looking to verify the accuracy which is why I posted here knowing that someone somewhere had the information at their fingertips. I’m as Catholic as they come, however I always test all things. I figured that statement was false (given I got it from the famous Joe Mizzi himself at www.justforcatholics.org and already know how he likes to twist things) but I thought I’d get the answers here, like I always do.

The Catholic church always has the answers to everything!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Superstar905:

Hi NotWorthy…to be honest, I don’t know what to make of your post. I’m not espousing anything, except what I found on a website.

Yes, I understand that you are looking for answers. But someone came up with this, and thought they could use this to sway ignorant Catholics to leave the Church.

I detest the use of lies and distortions to lead someone to (what someone believes is) the real church. That’s what that person is doing (Again, I’m aware it’s not you).

I’ve got a friend who is CofC, and his Church teaches that Catholics invented Purgatory in the 12th century, the Papacy in the 5th, and infant Baptism (I don’t recall when we invented that). They taught this because they truly thought that’s what we did (I can respect that).

I showed him in some of the readings of the Early Church Fathers that we taught these things long before that, all the way back into the first century sometimes. Now if he continues to teach that, I no longer respect his methods, because he knows he’s lying.

NotWorthy

 

[steve99]

Psalm45:9:

Some of the Books listed might be under their older names. Ex. 1 and 2 Samuel are really 1 and 2 Kings and what we call 1 and 2 Kings today are really 3 and 4 Kings, because all 4 of those books record the Acts of the Kings of Israel all the way up to the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon.

Also, some books are joined. Baruch is considered part of Jeremiah and not a seperate book.

Also 1 & 2 Esdras in Pope Damascus list is Ezra & Nehemiah.
And the splendidly named 1 & 2 Paralipomenon are 1 & 2 Chronicles.

 

[Gracie2004]

Yes, I’m also dealing with a protestant who swears that the first Fathers never mention infant baptism, purgatory, or the Papacy and he lists the ones who started talking about it in about 400 A.D…for the life of me I can’t find any earlier than that myself…let alone the perpetual virginity of Mary

If anyone else has some information here, or, Notworthy, if you have proof from the Fathers than I cannot find, would you let me know? Thanks.

Gracie

 

[metal1633]

Superstar905:

Is this claim accurate? I can’t find the information.

"From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed, if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken). "

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

These are the same books we use. Some of the names are differant is all.

 

[steve99]

Gracie2004:

Yes, I’m also dealing with a protestant who swears that the first Fathers never mention infant baptism, purgatory, or the Papacy and he lists the ones who started talking about it in about 400 A.D…for the life of me I can’t find any earlier than that myself…let alone the perpetual virginity of Mary

If anyone else has some information here, or, Notworthy, if you have proof from the Fathers than I cannot find, would you let me know? Thanks.

Gracie

With respect I think you are going off thread here. I think you should start a new thread with these questions.