Debate with anti-catholic bigot... help appreciated

[mercygate]

“Neener-neener”? And does the word “Deutero” mean anything to him?

 

[exoflare]

“Neener-neener”? And does the word “Deutero” mean anything to him?

Exactly. Classic case of what the psychologists call “projection”.

 

[arieh0310]

exoflare:

The RCC NEVER included the Apocrypha in the Bible as canonized Scripture before the Council of Trent. The writings were provided as addenda but NEVER as canonized Scripture. That is a crucial distinction which might be lost on you. Luther ALSO included the Apocrypha in a like manner, so he did not “leave the books out” of the Bible as is wrongly proposed by some.

It was my understanding that no books were officially canonized until Trent. Am I wrong?

 

[exoflare]

arieh0310:

It was my understanding that no books were officially canonized until Trent. Am I wrong?

You’re correct, none of the books at all were canonized infallibly until Trent. However, the same group of books (including the deuterocanonicals) were cited time and time again by previous councils ever since Hippo and Carthage. So, they had the list of books right ever since the 4th century. It’s just that they didn’t irrevocably affirm it until Trent.

The guy I was arguing with was just an arrogant fool who had to think he was always right, even in his own mind. One of the others on that e-mail thread (a non-Catholic) even told me they thought the same thing of him.

 

[deb1]

arieh0310:

It was my understanding that no books were officially canonized until Trent. Am I wrong?

I am new to Catholic history so please correct me if I am wrong. I remember having read this somewhere before.

Until Martin Luther, the deutrocannicals were accepted as part of the bible. When Protestants began questioning their worthiness, the church felt the need to restate that they were part of the bible. This doesn’t mean that they were added at the time, just that until the 1500’s no one had questioned these 7 books existence.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

deb1:

I am new to Catholic history so please correct me if I am wrong. I remember having read this somewhere before.

Until Martin Luther, the deutrocannicals were accepted as part of the bible. When Protestants began questioning their worthiness, the church felt the need to restate that they were part of the bible. This doesn’t mean that they were added at the time, just that until the 1500’s no one had questioned these 7 books existence.

That’s, more or less, how I understood it as well.

 

[b_justb]

deb1:

I am new to Catholic history so please correct me if I am wrong. I remember having read this somewhere before.

Until Martin Luther, the deutrocannicals were accepted as part of the bible. When Protestants began questioning their worthiness, the church felt the need to restate that they were part of the bible. This doesn’t mean that they were added at the time, just that until the 1500’s no one had questioned these 7 books existence.

There came about a set of 2 accepted canon of the Old Testament in the 1st century AD.

The Judaic Canon from Jerusalem that only accepted as Holy writ the Hebraic writings. And the Alexandrian Canon that accepted the Hebrew and the Greek (where we get the extra chapters of the Prophet Daniel and the 7 Deuterocanon).

The majority of Protestants accept the Judaic for of the OT and reject the Alexandrian. Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept the Alexandrian.

The Jewish Council of Jamnia in AD 85 set out as accepted canon for Jews the Judaic Scriptures and rejected the Alexandrian, this is why the Deuterocanon is not in any Jewish Bible. Why most Protestants accept a Jewish Councils list of Canon that was set up to definitely draw a dividing line between Jews and Christians is beyond me. From the very beginning Christians accepted the Alexandrian Canon (see Pope Clement’s letters from the First century).

Christian Church Councils set out what is already believed. Thus Trent merely set as Dogmatic the Canon that was already accepted.

 

[jimmy]

exoflare:

Some thoughts that just quickly came to me right after I posted that…

paragraph 1: I have no idea what his point is, nor do I really care.

" 2: this is just an outright lie, isn’t it? And anyways, I’m pretty sure there are several other books in the OT that are never quoted in the NT that are still accepted as canonical by protestants… not sure I can name them all, though.

" 4: Did Jerone really leave the “apocrypha” out of his vulgate translation? Even so, I guess it wouldn’t matter because he wasn’t the authority on which books were canon anyway.

In paragraph 6 he mentions the council of Trent as where the “apocrypha” were finally accepted as canon. The part he leaves out is, weren’t ALL the other books of the NT and OT first accepted (by an ecumenical council) here too??

For paragraph 2 I would mention Wisdom2 in reference to Matt.27;41-44 where the Jews mock Christ and say that if Christ is who He says He is, then God will protect Him. Paul references Wisdom in Romans.

For the same paragraph. It is a lie to say that only canonical books are referenced in the NT. Take for example Jude, which references the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch, two apocryphal books. It is also a distortion because he makes the assumption that all OT books are referenced in the NT. That is false.

Paragraph 4 is a lie. Jerome translated the greek scriptures into latin, and it included the deuterocanonicals.

Paragraph 5, I don’t know what Kejetan said, but I do know what Augustine said in his, “on Christian Doctrine”. He lists the scriptures and includes the deuterocanonicals with the rest. I know that the first century fathers spent a great deal of time defending the septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonicals.

Paragraph 6 is a lie. Tell him to read the councils of Rome, Trullo, and Florence which all occured before Trent. All these councils declared the canon of scripture with the deuterocanonicals.

I would also give him a history lesson on the councils of Laudicaea and Rome. Apocalypse was not accepted at Laudicaea, and was finally accepted at Rome with the OT deuterocanon(yes, there is a NT deuterocanon and it includeds Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James, and Apocalypse). Baruch was accepted at Laudicaea, which means it was accepted before Apocalypse, which is one of the favorite books of protestants.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

exoflare:

Man, how disappointing. Here’s his half-baked reply. Mind you, everyone on that e-mail thread is seeing all of these replies from both me and him.

He only responds to the part where I say:
<< As for the rejection of these books by the “RCC” up until that time, I’ll ask you once again to tell us which council or papal decree (you know, actual Catholic teaching of some sort) reject these books. Meanwhile, these councils seem to have approved them. >>

And his “reply”:

**I DID answer your question – Council of Trent proclaimed the Apocrypha as canon – with the full support of the Pope. I quoted the admonition from Trent that proclaimed anyone who rejected these books “anathema.” (In RCC terms that is a very bad word)

** Yes that was his WHOLE reply! What a friggin’ coward, I tell you… But at least he’s not able to fool anyone else on that e-mail thread, even if he’s stuck in denial himself. This is how I replied:

LOL Did you even read the question? You claimed the Catholic Church had rejected these books before, so I’ll ask you for the THIRD time which council or Pope was it that rejected these books prior to the Council of Trent? And how do you explain all the previous councils that approved the very same canon that included the “Apocrypha”? You’re not fooling anybody here if your only recourse is avoiding the question.

Exoflare:

There are some debates that Protestants know that, if they lose, they pretty much lose the reason for remaining protestant. This is one of those.

Once he’s lost this debate, that means he pretty much has to accept everything, including the Authority of the Church. That’s a very hard and bitter pill for most Protestants to swallow.

I would say to be very patient, and to pray for him.

BTW, there is a Sola Scriptura argument for purgatory.

*If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.

If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.

But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.* I Cor 3: 12-15. NAB

Then I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire. On the sea of glass were standing those who had won the victory over the beast and its image and the number that signified its name. They were holding God’s harps, and they sang the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb: "Great and wonderful are your works, Lord God almighty. Just and true are your ways, O king of the nations. Rev. 15:2-3. NAB

I think both are talking about Purgatory. and, Think about this for a second - What about the Beatific Vision (“The Face of God”) was such that not even Moses could see it without risking instant death?

Maybe Purgatory is a necessity to prepare most of us for what would have struck Moses dead… In which case, it’s a MERCY.

Praise be to Jesus Christ.

Pax Vobiscum, Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

here is the coucil of Carthage, here is the list (my stuff in red): CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.    

ITEM, 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
• The Judges
• Ruth
• The Kings (4 books) (1&2 Sam + 1&2Kings)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon (Proverbs + Song + Ecclesiasties + Wisdom + Sirach)
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books) (Ezra + Nehemiah)
• Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Also I saw this on New Advent (from old This Rock Mag Q&A) Here:
Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven deuterocanonical books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible?

No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later, at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (thought the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it certainly did not add those books to the canon.

If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren’t in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?

 

[Veritas41]

Here’s an outline of how the Catholic Church determined the canon. Please don’t take my word for it – check it out for yourself. I have even consulted secular sources, such as the World Book Encyclopedia, that verify the deuterocanonicals have been in the Catholic bible since the early centuries.

Pope Damasus in 382 convened the Council/Synod of Rome and listed the current 73 books in the Catholic Bible.

The Council of Hippo in 393 approved the same 73 books previously listed in 382.

the three Councils of Carthage in 393, 397 and 419 approved the same identical canon.

In 405 Pope St. Innocent I approved the 73 book canon, which closed the canon since the previous determinations weren’t binding on the whole church since they were regional councils. However, Pope Innocent’s affirmation of the canon was binding on the whole Church.

Later on the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 (which was binding on the whole Church) reaffirmed the canon determined by the previous councils.

Trent solemnly defined the canon in response to the widespread Protestant rejection of the canon.

One thing I would like you to explain is if the deuterocanonicals were never included in the Catholic Bible prior to the Council of Trent, then why do the Eastern Orthodox have these books in their Bible, and they broke communion with Rome in 1054, 500 years before Trent?

 

[RCCDefender]

There is a website that has tons, and tons of references from the New Testament that refer to the deuterocanonical books. I think it is scripturecatholic.com. If you go there, let me know if I am wrong…

 

[exoflare]

RCCDefender:

There is a website that has tons, and tons of references from the New Testament that refer to the deuterocanonical books. I think it is scripturecatholic.com. If you go there, let me know if I am wrong…

You’re right… if you look at my rebuttal above you’ll see that was one of the places I cited as well.

 

[ANWK]

will this analogy help??

saying that the Deutero did not exist in the Bible until Trent can be liken to saying that gravity did not exist until the apple dropped on Newton’s head??

makes sense??

 

[RCCDefender]

ANWK:

will this analogy help??

saying that the Deutero did not exist in the Bible until Trent can be liken to saying that gravity did not exist until the apple dropped on Newton’s head??

makes sense??

AWESOME ANALOGY!!! I couldn’t have said it any better!

 

[exoflare]

RCCDefender:

AWESOME ANALOGY!!! I couldn’t have said it any better!

Well, they don’t really claim that the deutero’s didnt exist til the Catholic Church put them in… The claim is that they weren’t considered inspired scripture by anyone up until that time.