You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nicea325
Guest
U-huh…just like Arianists,Adoptionists,etc,etc have long debated other key doctrines-and?Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustus24
Learned Catholics have long debated the canon from Jerome to Erasmus and Cajetan.
That’s not for me, you, or anyone but God to say. Scripture says that Baptism is necessary, and the historic Church has always taught that infants should be Baptized.I see, thanks.
How do you regard those christians who disagree that infants should be baptized? Are their babies unsaved?
Jon
K
kwortham
Guest
What ^^^he^^^ said!That’s not for me, you, or anyone but God to say. Scripture says that Baptism is necessary, and the historic Church has always taught that infants should be Baptized.
Jon
A
Augustus24
Guest
Augustus24;10458968:
Universally accepted-right? Who DECIDED? Others proven not to be canonical? BY WHOM?Nicea325;10458914:
Again,you are not catching your blind faith on SS. Again, your own words:
The 27 books were universally accepted by the 4th century. All others had been proven not to be canonical.
One more time, your own words:
*They did not need *a pope or a magisterium to tell them that this was scripture, nor did any Christian. That’s why the Catholic Church waited until Trent to formally canonize the Catholic scriptures.
Well if Christians do not need a Church to tell them and canon is NOT doctrine-THEN WHY ARE YOU ACCEPTING A DECISION SET FORTH AND ESTABLISHED BY THE CC IN THE 4TH?
Wrong! The CC did not wait until Trent to formally canonize scripture A profound misunderstanding by non-Catholics. Trent merely re-affirmed what was established long before. Why do you think it re-affirmed at Trent? Hhmmmmm?
The 27 books were universally accepted by the 4th century. All others had been proven not to be canonical.The church recognized the NT canon before the Pope or any magisterium told what it was.Universally accepted-right? Who DECIDED?
Please don’t post in all caps, as that is tantamount to yelling on the internet, thanks.Well if Christians do not need a Church to tell them and canon is NOT doctrine-THEN WHY ARE YOU ACCEPTING A DECISION SET FORTH AND ESTABLISHED BY THE CC IN THE 4TH?
The church did not wait until a pope or magisterium told them what the canon was. It was accepted prior, as Athanasius produced a list of the NT canon some 20 years before the Pope and the magisterium produced it’s list.
canonize scriptureWrong! The CC did not wait until Trent to formally
No, prior to Trent all the definitions were simply local councils. That’s why the “apostolic” churches disagree with each other on the canon.
K
kwortham
Guest
Nicea325;10459069:
Reference?Augustus24;10458968:
The church recognized the NT canon before the Pope or any magisterium told what it was.
A
Augustus24
Guest
Hello.Reference?
Athanasius produced a list of the NT books in 367.
(Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 15.)
The local Council of Rome, where Catholics tell me their pope and the magisterium defined their canon was in the year 382.
*(Ibid. pp. 15) *
How could Athanasius know what the NT was 15 years prior to the Pope and the Magisterium telling him?
K
kwortham
Guest
He was the bishop of Alexandria. He did not speak for the whole Church. He spoke for Alexandria under the authority of Rome. As such, he did not have complete the entire canon of scripture until Rome had spoken fifteen years later. Where did he dictate his canon of the NT to the universal Church? He did not and could not.Hello.
Athanasius produced a list of the NT books in 367.
(Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 15.)
The local Council of Rome, where Catholics tell me their pope and the magisterium defined their canon was in the year 382.
*(Ibid. pp. 15) *
How could Athanasius know what the NT was 15 years prior to the Pope and the Magisterium telling him?
[Council of Ephesus (Universal Council)] - "For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle…Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of the holy memory down to the present time. "
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement of Alexandria to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
A
Augustus24
Guest
He was the bishop of Alexandria. He did not speak for the whole Church. He spoke for Alexandria under the authority of Rome. As such, he did not have complete the entire canon of scripture until Rome had spoken fifteen years later. Where did he dictate his canon of the NT to the universal Church? He did not and could not.
Not really, since he had just been exiled and excommunicated by the idiot Pope Liberius. He and Rome were not on cordial relations. Also, the council of Rome didnt speak for the whole church either since the Greeks, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians roundly reject the Roman Catholic canon, and learned Catholics from Jerome to Erasmus and Cajetan would continue to question the canon. If Rome spoke in 382 and the canon was closed, why did the Greeks, and Armenians, and Copts not accept the canon? It was because they didn’t know that the Pope was infallible and had completely jurisdiction over all churches, in fact that teaching would take another couple hundred years to be invented.He was the bishop of Alexandria. He did not speak for the whole Church. He spoke for Alexandria under the authority of Rome.
P
pablope
Guest
Athanasius could only define for what for his diocese…not for the whole universal church.Hello.
Athanasius produced a list of the NT books in 367.
(Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 15.)
The local Council of Rome, where Catholics tell me their pope and the magisterium defined their canon was in the year 382.
*(Ibid. pp. 15) *
How could Athanasius know what the NT was 15 years prior to the Pope and the Magisterium telling him?
That is why a council was called…in AD 382…and when Pope Damasus issued his proclamation…there were no other canons put forth…and one fo the reasons for having a canon was to have a set of writings to be read during the Catholic Mass…not to determine and extract doctrine. The extracting of doctrine only started with your protestant forbears…who threw out the authority of the Chuch and substituted their own.
It was after the council of AD382 that Jerome was commissioned by the Pope to translate the writings to latin…which became the Latin Vulgate…which has been the Bible of the CC since…and for which Trent said…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.”
N
Nicea325
Guest
Nicea325;10459069:
Wrong! The church acknowledged a list of books…not a canon. A list of books is not the same as being canonized. Some books were in question,including some in the current NT prior to canonization.Augustus24;10458968:
The church recognized the NT canon before the Pope or any magisterium told what it was.
Please don’t post in all caps, as that is tantamount to yelling on the internet, thanks.
The church did not wait until a pope or magisterium told them what the canon was. It was accepted prior, as Athanasius produced a list of the NT canon some 20 years before the Pope and the magisterium produced it’s list.
No, prior to Trent all the definitions were simply local councils. That’s why the “apostolic” churches disagree with each other on the canon.
Wrong again! Athanasius produced a list of books,he did not produce a NT canon. If he produced a list of canonized books,then please provide the ancient sources confirming Anthanius himself ratified it as canon? If not him,then who canonized it?
Ahhhh… yes…Trent re-affirmed it. Just because others were out-of-the-scoop does not negate a ratified doctrine. Is the Trinitarian doctrine invalid since Arianist and semi-Arinaist disagreed? What about Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses? Is the Trinitarian doctrine in-doubt as well? How about the Hypostatic Union? Simply because some refuse to accept it does not leave it “open” for further questioning. Using your argument is just applicable to the NT canon.
By the way, you have not answered the following:
Your words again:
Sola Scriptura doesn’t mention anything. It is the practice of norming doctrine in the church. You could separate the scriptures into one volume of 10. It wouldn’t affect the practice.
If SS does not mention anything about a canon and no where mentions SS either-then how is the following possible:
SS is used as a praxis for all doctrine to be normed via scripture.
P
pablope
Guest
Not really, since he had just been exiled and excommunicated by the idiot Pope Liberius. He and Rome were not on cordial relations. Also, the council of Rome didnt speak for the whole church either since the Greeks, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians roundly reject the Roman Catholic canon, and learned Catholics from Jerome to Erasmus and Cajetan would continue to question the canon.
But there is one difference…they did not cause it to cause a split in the Church.
Did you know Jerome also said this…What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?
When the Pope spoke…he submitted to its judgement…not his own and did not endeavor to create their own religions.
If Rome spoke in 382 and the canon was closed, why did the Greeks, and Armenians, and Copts not accept the canon? .
K
kwortham
Guest
Hmmm! He was what? So, you take what someone “excommunicated” in Alexandria wrote 146 years after Clement of Alexandria (not excommunicated) as speaking for the whole Church as gospel?Not really, since he had just been exiled and excommunicated by the idiot Pope Liberius. He and Rome were not on cordial relations. Also, the council of Rome didnt speak for the whole church either since the Greeks, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians roundly reject the Roman Catholic canon, and learned Catholics from Jerome to Erasmus and Cajetan would continue to question the canon. If Rome spoke in 382 and the canon was closed, why did the Greeks, and Armenians, and Copts not accept the canon? It was because they didn’t know that the Pope was infallible and had completely jurisdiction over all churches, in fact that teaching would take another couple hundred years to be invented.
Face it, the canon of scripture was not set in stone until the council of Rome. All later councils affirmed it.
P
pablope
Guest
Which Church was in existence when this was written? How did the RCC became to be known as the RCC?
Do you know how the name Roman became attached to the CC and who did that?
Quote:
Is your church 2000 years old? Can your church trace its history back 2000 years?Okay…show us. Can you trace a line of leaders all the way to any apostle?Yes, of course.
P
pablope
Guest
Could you produce a document from any head bishop of the greeks, copts syrians, etc…that state they reject the bible canon?Not really, since he had just been exiled and excommunicated by the idiot Pope Liberius. He and Rome were not on cordial relations. Also, the council of Rome didnt speak for the whole church either[SIGN] since the Greeks, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, and Ethiopians roundly reject the Roman Catholic canon,[/SIGN] and learned Catholics from Jerome to Erasmus and Cajetan would continue to question the canon. If Rome spoke in 382 and the canon was closed, why did the Greeks, and Armenians, and Copts not accept the canon? It was because they didn’t know that the Pope was infallible and had completely jurisdiction over all churches, in fact that teaching would take another couple hundred years to be invented.
A
Augustus24
Guest
You can go research the canons of these various churches and see for yourself that they reject the RC canon.Could you produce a document from any head bishop of the greeks, copts syrians, etc…that state they reject the bible canon?
P
pablope
Guest
[/QUOTE]Yes, since what the apostles taught is recorded in scripture, we obey their teachings by obeying scripture. Everything else is just someone’s opinion.Hello.
How do you know everything the Apostles taught is in Scripture? Not all apostles wrote anything.
Again…this has nothing to do with what the apostles taught…it has something to do with knowing the spirit of truth…so how can you tell the spirit of truth?
How can you tell which is apostolic or not?
Does it say read the Scripture? or something else?
Let us say…the Real Presence in the Eucharist…there are those who believe in it and there are those who do not?
So who should determine the right belief? And how can the Bible alone solve this dilemna?
P
pablope
Guest
Just because they list it does not mean they reject it.You can go research the canons of these various churches and see for yourself that they reject the RC canon.
As I said previously…The canon of Scripture is not a point of contention between the Eastern Churches…for the original intent of the Canon was to have a common set of readings for the Liturgy…it was never intended to replace the authority of the bishops.
Some eastern churches carried on a somewhat different canon…actually, more books in the OT…based on their tradition and which Apostle they inherited it from…but not less…not 39 books.
So…can you produce a document stating they reject it…from the highest authority within these churches or not?
A
Augustus24
Guest
The church was in existence. The Roman Catholic denomination would take centuries to develop all of its distinctive teachings.Which Church was in existence when this was written?
Your denomination has been calling itself “Roman” for centuries, even prior to the Protestant Reformation. For example From the 5th Lateran Council in 1512:Do you know how the name Roman became attached to the CC and who did that?
Accordingly, in this second session lawfully assembled in the holy Spirit, after mature deliberation held by us with our venerable brothers, the cardinals of the holy Roman church…
And the Council of Constance in 1414:
We have therefore come together with our venerable brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, and our court to this city of Constance at the appointed time.
Sure, but would it matter at all? The Oriental Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Orthodox Tewahedo church can all trace their lineage back to an apostle, and they readily reject the claims of jurisdiction of the Roman bishop.Okay…show us. Can you trace a line of leaders all the way to any apostle?
A
Augustus24
Guest
Just because they list it does not mean they reject it.
As I said previously…The canon of Scripture is not a point of contention between the Eastern Churches…for the original intent of the Canon was to have a common set of readings for the Liturgy…it was never intended to replace the authority of the bishops.
Some eastern churches carried on a somewhat different canon…actually, more books in the OT…based on their tradition and which Apostle they inherited it from…but not less…not 39 books.
So…can you produce a document stating they reject it…from the highest authority within these churches or not?
They reject your denomination’s canon as incomplete.Just because they list it does not mean they reject it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.