Deuterocanonical books

[JonNC]

So patriarchal acceptance is your criteria? Do all have to accept, or just majority? How many councils do you accept?

It isn’t my criteria. It is their’s, but you can get them to do so, I think that would qualify them as truly ecumenical.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I didn’t know Christ did that.

He didn’t. Luther did
J:

Maybe, but some of your comments don’t reflect the theological dialogue today.

That depends on the theologian, true?
J:

Example of the above:
** If Roman Catholics recognize an authentically evangelical thrust surging through the more or less adequate formulas of Luther and Reformation anthropology in general, then they must see in it a theology of grace that is a valid complement to their own and other traditional formulations.

Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal. He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.** - Rev. Michael J. Scanlon, O.S.A.

Not to take this off the tracks, I can’t see a pope EVER canonizing Luther as a saint and doctor of the Church…IMHO
J:

He did neither, but read what Scanlon says.

Scanlon in that article said nothing about Luther creating an apocrypha in his bible.
J:

And you don’t have a right to a false truth that the canon was set, even for the Catholic Church before Trent. It didn’t happen that way.

Just in case there was ANY doubt about the canon, Trent made sure the language was clear on the closing of the canon OT & NT. But Trent changed nothing. The canon was the same as Damasus decreed back in 382, which means that same canon listing the books of the bible by name, was in place for 1100+ years.

I haven’t seen any earlier complete lists. The earliest list I’ve seen is the Muratorian NT canon, that doesn’t list the OT books. That canon went through its own transformation.
J:

His excommunication had nothing to do with his view of the canon, and that’s an important point in our discussion. Unless you are willing to hold others to the standard you want to hold Luther, your position is, at best contradictory.

Throughout our conversations on this topic, dates have been given throughout these posts for all the events that happened. Luther was excommunicated in 1521. Luther developed his bible after he was excommunicated.
J:

If Florence set the canon, then all Orthodox churches would have the same canon.

They have the addition of 3 Macc. No apocrypha.
J:

You can’t have it both ways Steve. If he changed the canon, then Trent would have confirmed it.

Trent confirmed the canon that was in place for 1100+ years.
J:

And herein is the real difference between the position of the Bishop of Rome, and the early Church, and the Councils, which do not recognize this kind of supremacy. But that’s another discussion.

That argument, over primacy of one of THEM, as you know, started in the upper room, over who among the apostles was the greatest. Jesus settled their argument. #153 ****

Irenaeus, in ~180 a,d, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle, ALSO defended the primacy of Peter in Rome and his successors by naming 12 bishops by name, of Rome from Peter, down to his day. And by extension he affirms the preeminent authority of this Church over all the others. And notice, who Irenaeus credits this information that he passes down to his readers? This is sacred tradition that came down from Peter and Paul at Rome. Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3
J:

And that hasn’t happened in a thousand years.

If the pope didn’t approve of a council being a universal council, it wasn’t. That goes back to the beginning.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13525532]He didn’t. Luther did

Oh good. We agree, that our founder didn’t.

That depends on the theologian, true?

Well, sure, but find me a Catholic theologian today that speaks the way you did regarding Luther and violence on the scripture.

Not to take this off the tracks, I can’t see a pope EVER canonizing Luther as a saint and doctor of the Church…IMHO

Well, I suspect not, also, but I think Scanlon represents the Catholic view of Luther since Vatican II, and maybe as early as Joseph Lortz.

Scanlon in that article said nothing about Luther creating an apocrypha in his bible.

True, but do you think a Catholic who is willing to speculate about Luther as a doctor of the Church Universal would claim is committed violence on God’s word?

Just in case there was ANY doubt about the canon, Trent made sure the language was clear on the closing of the canon OT & NT.

Yes. Trent, even though there were those at the council who disagreed, closed the liberty regarding the canon for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Effectively, it did what no council had done; it declared it an article of faith.

But Trent changed nothing. The canon was the same as Damasus decreed back in 382, which means that same canon listing the books of the bible by name, was in place for 1100+ years.

It actually changed a lot of things - but only for Catholics that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Keep in mind that it does not apply to others.

I haven’t seen any earlier complete lists. The earliest list I’ve seen is the Muratorian NT canon, that doesn’t list the OT books. That canon went through its own transformation.

See what you think of this, Steve.
bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Throughout our conversations on this topic, dates have been given throughout these posts for all the events that happened. Luther was excommunicated in 1521. Luther developed his bible after he was excommunicated.

Yes. His excommunication had nothing to do with the canon.

They have the addition of 3 Macc. No apocrypha.

Some churches in Orthodoxy have more than 3 Macc. But if Trent set the canon, how can there be more books?

Trent confirmed the canon that was in place for 1100+ years.

Trent set the 73 book western canon for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

That argument, over primacy of one of THEM, as you know, started in the upper room, over who among the apostles was the greatest. Jesus settled their argument. #153 ****

Irenaeus, in ~180 a,d, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle, ALSO defended the primacy of Peter in Rome and his successors by naming 12 bishops by name, of Rome from Peter, down to his day. And by extension he affirms the preeminent authority of this Church over all the others. And notice, who Irenaeus credits this information that he passes down to his readers? This is sacred tradition that came down from Peter and Paul at Rome. Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

A Lutheran can accept the primacy of the pope, but not the innovation of supremacy.

If the pope didn’t approve of a council being a universal council, it wasn’t. That goes back to the beginning.

Then why do none of the early councils affirm papal supremacy? Nicaea canon 6 contradicts the idea.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Oh good. We agree, that our founder didn’t.

Well, sure, but find me a Catholic theologian today that speaks the way you did regarding Luther and violence on the scripture.

Well, I suspect not, also, but I think Scanlon represents the Catholic view of Luther since Vatican II, and maybe as early as Joseph Lortz.
True, but do you think a Catholic who is willing to speculate about Luther as a doctor of the Church Universal would claim is committed violence on God’s word?

Yes. Trent, even though there were those at the council who disagreed, closed the liberty regarding the canon for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Effectively, it did what no council had done; it declared it an article of faith.

It actually changed a lot of things - but only for Catholics that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Keep in mind that it does not apply to others.

See what you think of this, Steve.
bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Yes. His excommunication had nothing to do with the canon.

Some churches in Orthodoxy have more than 3 Macc. But if Trent set the canon, how can there be more books?

Trent set the 73 book western canon for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

A Lutheran can accept the primacy of the pope, but not the innovation of supremacy.

Then why do none of the early councils affirm papal supremacy? Nicaea canon 6 contradicts the idea.

Jon

Linus was appointed the successor to Peter by Peter… He who has the keys to the kingdom. Even Ignatius of Antioch paid his respects

 

[JonNC]

Linus was appointed the successor to Peter by Peter… He who has the keys to the kingdom. Even Ignatius of Antioch paid his respects

We should all pay respect to the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Linus was appointed the successor to Peter by Peter… He who has the keys to the kingdom. Even Ignatius of Antioch paid his respects

Point ? Because that dosent support papal supremacy, although I support apostolic succession.

 

[mattp0625]

We should all pay respect to the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

You can read Ignatius for yourself

Lastly, the church is not an invisible, spiritual-only church with conflicting doctrines.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

You can read Ignatius for yourself

Lastly, the church is not an invisible, spiritual-only church with conflicting doctrines.

We teach that it’s visible and invisible , and it does have different traditions

 

[mattp0625]

Point ? Because that dosent support papal supremacy, although I support apostolic succession.

The handing of the keys to Peter - Jesus formally starting his church on earth. This forms the direct line from Jesus to the next to the next.

I don’t see Christ starting multiple churches with conflicting doctrines

 

[JonNC]

You can read Ignatius for yourself

Lastly, the church is not an invisible, spiritual-only church with conflicting doctrines.

Agreed.

 

[mattp0625]

Agreed.

I don’t see how you can say any Protestant church is anything other than another (new) church with conflicting doctrines and lacking succession

 

[Duane1966]

I think the LCMS officially acknowledges 4, but also accepts the teachings of the other three

Jon

And what is the LCMS’s criteria for acknowledging a council as ecumenical, or not?

It isn’t my criteria. It is their’s, but you can get them to do so, I think that would qualify them as truly ecumenical.

Jon

Interesting that you should post that Jon, because that is not their criteria. I quote Orthodox Bp. Timothy Ware, from his book The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity.

“All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.”

Jon, if for the Orthodox the criteria is acceptance by the whole Church, then Chalcedon is not ecumenical, as it was never accepted by the OO. So we know that cannot be their criteria.

And if it is patriarchal acceptance, then they should accept Florence, as their patriarchal representatives accepted Florence. But we know it cannot be patriarchal acceptance, if it is, then how can a council condemn a patriarch who is teaching heresy? All said heretical patriarch would have to do is not accept said councils decrees, therefore making the council invalid.

You said earlier

but no pope has the power to speak for the whole church

Sure he does. 9 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:17-19]
Whether you accept it or not, has no bearing on whether he actually has such power. That power was given by Christ.

 

[steve_b]

Well, sure, but find me a Catholic theologian today that speaks the way you did regarding Luther and violence on the scripture.

Why do you think it takes approval from a theologian?

Is deliberately removing scriptural books from the bible doing damage to scripture? Yes

deliberately doing damage to someone or some thing is a violent act…
J:

Yes. Trent, even though there were those at the council who disagreed, closed the liberty regarding the canon for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Effectively, it did what no council had done; it declared it an article of faith.

Did you miss the following in my previous post on Florence?

Florence used the words “profess, believes, accepts, God is the author, venerates” those books

From the council of Florence (all emphasis mine)

“Most firmlyit believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It **professes **that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
*
*Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.”
Session 11 (1442)
J:

See what you think of this, Steve.
bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

It’s as I said,

“I haven’t seen any earlier complete lists. The earliest list I’ve seen is the Muratorian NT canon, that doesn’t list the OT books. That canon went through its own transformation.”

But the official canon was Decreed by Damasus, validated by councils of Hippo and Carthage, and Florence and Trent
J:

Some churches in Orthodoxy have more than 3 Macc. But if Trent set the canon, how can there be more books?

The E Orthodox are no longer Catholic, or the Catholic Church.
J:

Trent set the 73 book -]western /-]canon for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

True

And the bishop of Rome as the successor to St Peter, is Our Lord’s Church. The only one He established.
J:

A Lutheran can accept the primacy of the pope, but not the innovation of supremacy.

Papal supremacy is scriptural #153 , #210 , #94

Now Lutherans are an innovation in the 16th century. Why then do you accept THEM?
J:

Then why do none of the early councils affirm papal supremacy? Nicaea canon 6 contradicts the idea.

Jon

Canon 6 didn’t support or contradict supremacy. It said nothing about that… And it didn’t attempt to set limits on the bishop of Rome either.

 

[Duane1966]

Canon 6 didn’t support or contradict supremacy. It said nothing about that… And it didn’t attempt to set limits on the bishop of Rome either.

Actually, I find canon VI clearly showing the supremacy of Rome. And in light of how the Church acted in other councils the supremacy is confirmed.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, I find canon VI clearly showing the supremacy of Rome. And in light of how the Church acted in other councils the supremacy is confirmed.

IMV canon 6 didn’t support or deny the supremacy of Rome. It’s not clear either way
newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

 

[mattp0625]

Tertullian and Ignatius wrote about it. Direct succession is recognized.

 

[steve_b]

Tertullian and Ignatius wrote about it. Direct succession is recognized.

in this case, Tertullian and Ignatius aren’t the issue.

Canon 6
*
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm*

I’m just pointing out, that canon 6 of Nicea was not denying or supporting Rome’s “supremacy”. Canon 6 is talking about local management (jurisdiction) customs in Egypt and surrounding areas go to Alexandria…and such is Antioch and their areas of jurisdiction, …and Rome as well. Let them retain their privileges.

IMV, this is NOT the canon to use in support of the supremacy of Rome. It’s not specific enough.

If you have something to bust this canon open, and show that it supports the “supremacy of Rome” please share it. I welcome it.

 

[mattp0625]

in this case, Tertullian and Ignatius aren’t the issue.

Canon 6
*
Let the ancient customs in Egypt*, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

I’m just pointing out, that canon 6 of Nicea was not denying or supporting Rome’s “supremacy”. Canon 6 is talking about local management (jurisdiction) customs in Egypt and surrounding areas go to Alexandria…and such is Antioch and their areas of jurisdiction, …and Rome as well. Let them retain their privileges.

IMV, this is NOT the canon to use in support of the supremacy of Rome. It’s not specific enough.

If you have something to bust this canon open, and show that it supports the “supremacy of Rome” please share it. I welcome it.

Just talking about observers of the early church who recognized the direct apostolic succession in Rome

 

[adf417]

To JonNC who is always quoting Nicaea canon 6 in regards to supremacy, may I ask for you understanding on canon 5?

Canon 5

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.

What is the consequence for those provinces that do not hold a synod twice a year as decreed above and who administers this consequence?

Peace?

 

[Duane1966]

IMV canon 6 didn’t support or deny the supremacy of Rome. It’s not clear either way
newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

The following is taken from this article. The whole article is a fantastic read, and what little I have quoted does not do it justice.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

Canon 6

Ta archaia ethe krateito ta en Aigupto kai Liboe kai Pentapolei, hoste ton Alexandreias episopon panton touton echein ten exousian, epeide kai to en te Rome episkopo touto sunethes estin. Homoios de kai kata Antiocheian kai en tais allais eparchias ta presbeia sozesthai tais ekklesiais

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

The main object of the decree is to confirm the time-honored privileges of the See of Alexandria. From time immemorial the bishops of that city had claimed and exercised supreme jurisdiction over the churches of Egypt and the neighboring provinces. They received the appeals of the bishops from the sentence of their metropolitans; convened and presided over provincial synods; they ordained if necessary, deposed bishops; in a word they were, in the phraseology of a later age, patriarchs. Whatever may have been the source of this authority, there is no record of its having been contested by any of the Egyptian bishops before Meletius of Lycopoli, raised the standard of rebellion…

The great synod decreed “that the ancient order of things in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis must be maintained, to wit, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all these provinces.” And lest similar disorders might arise in Antioch or elsewhere, the Council enacted furthermore “that all the churches should keep their ancient standing.”…

We know this:

The supremacy of the Bishop of Alexandria had been contested by the Meletian bishops. They had, asked him, if not in words at least in facts, upon what warrant he based his claim to rule over and depose his fellow-bishops. If he had a title let him produce it. Now the Alexandrian prelate had no written document of any kind to produce. The Council of Nicaea, therefore, came to his assistance, by decreeing that the Patriarch’s [16] authority must be respected, and that for two reasons: first, because it was (archaia), immemorial, aboriginal; and second,** because it was sanctioned by constant recognition on the part of the Roman Pontiff.** Two very good reasons…

And now we come to the main part.

“Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, etc., be adhered to, so that the Alexandrian Bishop shall rule these provinces; because this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom.” Now it is plain that Bonifacius and Nicolaus, as quoted above, were quite correct** in affirming that the Synod made no enactment of any kind in regard to the Roman Pontiff. This canon neither grants new privileges to the Apostolic See, nor confirms any existing ones. For some reason or other, the Council did not think it necessary to legislate upon the Bishop of Rome.** It strengthened the hands of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of the Exarchs of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. In Canon VII. it conceded a Patriarchate of Honor to the Bishop of the Holy City;** but it did not DARE exercise, in any way, a legislative authority over the city of St. Peter**. …The Council does not “divide between the Roman Pontiff and the other Patriarchs,” but adduces the authority of the former as a reason for admitting the claims of the latter…

The kernel of the difficulty is the demonstrative (touto), this. “This is the custom of the Roman Bishop.” What does this refer to? “Let the Bishop of Alexandria retain his ancient sway over these three provinces, for this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom.” According to Bellarmine and others, (touto) refers to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and is to be expounded thus: “Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff’s custom; that is,** because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop’s authority over this tract of country.” …**

To be continued…