V
VociMike
Guest
Oh dear, you mean it won’t be a trivial exercise for kaycee?
- Status
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
You left one thing in your fallible interpretation in post you read. You failed to look at the two verse in those passages.Really! No problem believing the deuts to be non inspired!
Would this statement by Cardinal Catejan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, be considered orthodox or heretical?
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Clearly 2 levels of Canon.
The Council of Trent
The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent…It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books recxeived by this council. They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of the Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticcles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.
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 (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed.), pp. 17-18).
I highlight it in red just in case you didn’t see it. One have the reject the entire sacred text to be totally against it. Have you found any theologian who did not consider **all of Scripture **inspired.
E
El_camino
Guest
I see no problem AT ALL with this. In a council when they are deliberating on a theological issue to be inambiguously defined, there will be some for, and others against it. At the end, the decision of the Holy Spirit will prevail, in the mean time, that is how the H.S. acts.Really! No problem believing the deuts to be non inspired!
Would this statement by Cardinal Catejan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, be considered orthodox or heretical?
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Clearly 2 levels of Canon.
The Council of Trent
The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent…It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books recxeived by this council. They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of the Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticcles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.
**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 (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed.), pp. 17-18).
Consider the Council of Jerusalen (Acts 15). The judaizers, like James, presented their case, then the ones agiainst Judaizing presented theirs (i.e., Paul and Peter). Finally, the opinion of the H.S. prevailed and James CHANGED his mind.
Same thing in this case, the position by Cajetan (not Catejan) that you show there, was one of the positions that was considered. The second position that you show was the final resolution of the Council.
So the first position by Cajetan in the Council of Trent, corresponds to the Judaizer’s (including James) position in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which DID NOT PREVAIL. The second position was what prevailed in TRENT, just like Peter and Paul’s position prevailed in Jerusalem as being the mind of the H.S.
Blessings,
E.C.
K
kaycee
Guest
Council of Trullo
The Eastern Church generally followed the views of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius. For example, the sixth century bishop, Anastasius of Antioch, taught that the Old Testament canon consisted of twenty-two books. This did not include the books of the Apocrypha.
The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. The canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West. Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas. These facts prove that the Council received the canons of Carthage with the understanding that the term ‘canonical’ was to be interpreted in a general sense in that the books listed were authoritatively received for reading in the Church. The Inspired scripture and the non inspired Deuts allowed for church readings.
As Henry Percival points out:
“We have thus four [five if we accept the Laodicean list as genuine] **different canons of Holy Scripture, all having the approval of the Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical. **From this there seems but one conclusion possible, viz.: that the approval given was not specific but general”
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
K
kaycee
Guest
I dont see your point. Are you saying one must reject all scripture not just some books to be heretical?
V
VociMike
Guest
I cannot make heads or tails of this answer. Simply point me to the Church council that lists the Protestant canon.
K
kaycee
Guest
**Actually William Webster does know history!
Jerome DID NOT recant.**
The citation above, is used to prove that Jerome recanted and followed the “judgement of the churches” meaning Hippo and Carthage. This quote is used to mislead, possibly by accident.
Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:
**
Jerome’s quote in context. Your portion in green.**
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.
**The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html**
Z
Zooey
Guest
You can’t just toss out what you don’t like, kaycee. The facts are the facts, & the facts are that the canon of Scriptures is :nope: NOT decided on the basis of whether you like the canon or not.I dont see your point. Are you saying one must reject all scripture not just some books to be heretical?
Heck,
as I’ve said before again & again & again, I find absolutely nothing to inspire me in Leviticus or Numbers. Unlike some others (think Martin Luther), it would never, ever occur to me, that I should just slice those books out. Why?? Because they are part of the established canon of Scriptures, and I have no right to do any such slicing & dicing.The council of Trent did have the right…and indeed, in the face of Luther & Co., the responsibility to declare that the Scriptures are the Scriptures are the Scriptures are the Scriptures.
Except, of course, that:dts: none assembled there having :banghead:Yours Truly’s :banghead:temper, they said it much more nicely.
[SIGN]
Ay-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi!!! ****[/SIGN]
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Well, let’s take a look at one of the Reformers. Martin Luther, the founder of Lutherans. He believed 4 NT are not part of canon, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.I dont see your point. Are you saying one must reject all scripture not just some books to be heretical?
It was only because of the pressure he got from other Reformers to keep those books in the Bible. Yes, you have to reject all of it. When I say reject, I mean you would go in such great length to alter the translation of the Bible. Martin Luther is one example, he removed 7 Books of the OT, and remove 4 Books from the NT in the Bible.
Let me see. There was another earlier translation of the Bible Wyncliffe, it included the 7 OT text that the Catholic have,
sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm
Yet this book have a lot of errors on it. So the Church condemned it. Since this isn’t about Wyncliff Bible, we won’t discuss that.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Time and time again, we see kaycee posting opinions. We already shown her decrees by the all of the Three Major Councils that canonized Scripture…
M
Milliardo
Guest
Funny how kaycee here makes a point about the Council of Trullo–she even underlined one point of it where it says the Catholic Church never accepted Maccabees 3–which is true, since the canon never had Macabbees 3. 
So, I don’t get it either…
So, I don’t get it either…
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Our Eastern Rite Catholics does have the Maccabees 3 though, but I’ll look it up to be sure.Funny how kaycee here makes a point about the Council of Trullo–she even underlined one point of it where it says the Catholic Church never accepted Maccabees 3–which is true, since the canon never had Macabbees 3.
Z
Zooey
Guest
I thought it was Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Rite Catholics… Maybe someone on Eastern Christianity will know??
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I know the Orthodox does but I’m pretty sure Eastern Rite Catholic have it. I just open a thread in the Eastern Christian to double check if I’m right… just to confirm it…
J
Janet_S
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Janet that’s actually pretty easy to figure out.
Most n-Cs who are a-C will cherry pick quotes from the ECF that they wish to use to deceive Catholics into believing that the ECF were not themselves Catholic in doctrine and practice. It is much the same as the way in which they will cherry pick scriptures in order to make a case for whatever errant teaching they wish to preach.
It leads to deception and proselytizing, and is one of the things that I personally go way out of my way to avoid. (And that I am grateful to God that we are not subjected to from our own pulpits!)
The fact is that only when any teaching is looked at in the context of all other related scripture do we get a good understanding of what it says on any given topic. Most often the a-C will conveniently neglect verses and passages that clearly support Catholic doctrine, or else preach some twisted interpretation (Case in point John 6) that will sound too good to challenge (Please remember here that we Catholics cannot possibly teach the truth, else all n-C post reformation religions are out of business.) and that will be accepted at face value by the people in the pews with their Bibles spread in their laps and taking notes furiously.
The case for the DCs is far too strong to ever be more than an embarrassment to any honest n-C scholar.
Most n-Cs who are a-C will cherry pick quotes from the ECF that they wish to use to deceive Catholics into believing that the ECF were not themselves Catholic in doctrine and practice. It is much the same as the way in which they will cherry pick scriptures in order to make a case for whatever errant teaching they wish to preach.
It leads to deception and proselytizing, and is one of the things that I personally go way out of my way to avoid. (And that I am grateful to God that we are not subjected to from our own pulpits!)
The fact is that only when any teaching is looked at in the context of all other related scripture do we get a good understanding of what it says on any given topic. Most often the a-C will conveniently neglect verses and passages that clearly support Catholic doctrine, or else preach some twisted interpretation (Case in point John 6) that will sound too good to challenge (Please remember here that we Catholics cannot possibly teach the truth, else all n-C post reformation religions are out of business.) and that will be accepted at face value by the people in the pews with their Bibles spread in their laps and taking notes furiously.
The case for the DCs is far too strong to ever be more than an embarrassment to any honest n-C scholar.
J
Janet_S
Guest
J
Janet_S
Guest
To Kaycee,
I asked you this before, but never got an answer. Here’s a second go at it. Keep in mind, I am aware that there was controversy within the Church at various times and places that the 7 deuterocanonical OT books should not receive full canonical status. However, by the 4th century the Church did accept them as canonical.
I stated in a previous post that the canonicity of 7 NT books had been questioned in the early days of the Church as well, but ultimately the Church decided to give these 7 books canonical status. Do you believe in a 2-tier model of inspiration for the NT canon as well?
More specifically, should the 20 NT books (never disputed) be considered “inspired/God breathed” while the other 7 NT books (had been disputed) be considered useful for edification but never used to determine doctrine?
I asked you this before, but never got an answer. Here’s a second go at it. Keep in mind, I am aware that there was controversy within the Church at various times and places that the 7 deuterocanonical OT books should not receive full canonical status. However, by the 4th century the Church did accept them as canonical.
I stated in a previous post that the canonicity of 7 NT books had been questioned in the early days of the Church as well, but ultimately the Church decided to give these 7 books canonical status. Do you believe in a 2-tier model of inspiration for the NT canon as well?
More specifically, should the 20 NT books (never disputed) be considered “inspired/God breathed” while the other 7 NT books (had been disputed) be considered useful for edification but never used to determine doctrine?
K
kaycee
Guest
Jerome did NOT recant.
Apparently you did not read my comments or did not understand them.
**Jeromes remark about the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using, **NOT the councils of Hippo or Carthage.
The Catholic apologist Mark Shea has very graciously admitted he was mistaken in asserting that Jerome accepted the deutercanonicals.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/response-from-catholic-apologist-mark.html
Jerome’s quote in context. Your quote in green.
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.”
Jerome did not accept the deuts as being inspired, they were allowable for church reading but not for doctrine. This was the majority view up until the reformation.
- Status