Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Janet_S]

Are you, Kaycee, satisfied with the Protestant definition of a fallible collection of infallible books? I guess you have to be

Exceedingly satisfied! All the Glory goes to God!

I’m not the one stuck with an infallible church that can’t infallibly define what is and is not scripture after 2000 years.

If you think it’s a problem for the CC, it’s a bigger problem for you. Without an “infallible” Bible, what’s left?

If you agree with this definition “fallible collection of infallible books,” you are saying that some of the books are infallible and some are not. That’s a fallible Bible any way you look at it.

Very shaky foundation for the “Bible alone” crowd.

 

[Wisdom]

Exceedingly satisfied! All the Glory goes to God!

I’m not the one stuck with an infallible church that can’t infallibly define what is and is not scripture after 2000 years.

Catholics beleive all the glory goes to God also we just don’t beleive the Bible had to fall from the sky with a canon intact 33 AD for God to get the Glory that is unhistorical and wishful thinking on your part. God revealed the scriptures through the church and no other means.
Considering scripture was in much in dispute for hundreds of years after the fact you with your Bible alone postion is the one on far more shakey grounds not the church which is guaranteed to have the truth from the lips of Jesus himelf who never spoke of a new testament mind you.

As Origen reminds us of this issue.

"**And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ Matthew 16:18 **has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.

1. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us one Gospel, though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them? And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders.
2. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines."

Origen does not know at this date in church history in the third century if 2 Peter, 1,2,3 John are canonical in fact he has extreme doubts about them. Elsewhere he doubts James and Jude.

So his canon does not include the books that protestants have imagined everyone just knew where scriptures in fact most at this time doubted these books as scripture and they too were in a duterocanonical status. But this is the conundrum of protestants they are so sure about the Bible and yet the Christians immediately after the apostolic age were not so sure about the books and neither was Luther by the way. Unlike Luther Origen did not fret as he did not point to the Bible alone as Jesus himself never did rather like Christ he pointed to Peter whom His Church would be built and which the gates of hell would not prevail. This is the promise of Christ which guarantees we have the proper canon. The individual opinions of Origen, Jerome and Luther came with no such guarantee as Origen was quick to tell the gurantee came with Peter the Rock and the Church Chirst founded as did Jerome also say the same thing, because of this private opinions are not what Christ Church was built upon but the Rock of Peter and the church he guards that is ultimatly Christ Church who the gates of hell would not prevail.

 

[Wisdom]

Read this on a blog it hits to the point of the whole matter it does not matter what the canon is if the Church founded by Jesus commits error in her understanding of of What Jesus taught and Who Jesus was.

No Church No Creed No Canon.

Its that simple really but the evangelical wants it to be the Canon fell from the sky without a church and without a creed both of which the early Christians came to understand the canon. Another history redux of protestants.

April 22, 2007
The Creed came before the Canon. The Canon stands on the Creed.
The Nicene or “Niceno-Constantinopolitan” Creed.

The Council of Nicea, A.D. 325, authored this Creed up to and including the words affirming faith in the Holy Spirit. The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, added the remainder.

The two councils were responses to controversies concerning what to think and believe about Christ, the Trinity and the Church.

The establishing of a Christian list or measure (canon) of Scripture by the Church happened subsequent to the formulation of the Creed.

In the Gospel, Jesus tells his disciples to go and teach. He never tells them to go and write.

The writings of the New Testament grew out of the Church’s obedience to Jesus: go teach!

In other words, the New Testament is the fruit of the Church teaching as Jesus commanded. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James… Their teachings and testimony are handed down.

That is why Christianity did not get around to defining what the “canon of Scripture” was until after A.D. 390. Until then, the Church simply taught, since that was what Jesus told his disciples to do.

The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were about what could and could not be reconciled with Church teaching. There was no officially recognized and published canon. The Church was the arbiter and teacher, of what was Christian or not. As Jesus says it in the Gospel, “Whoever hears you, hears me.”

So the “Nicene” (and Constantinopolitan) Creed, as a binding “canon” of Christian teaching, was the stage on which, after A.D. 390, the Church stood in order to add the teaching that, “These— and not those— are the writings that Christians shall acknowledge as the inspired word of God.”

If you banish the Church and its Creed, your understanding of Scripture has no foundation historically, theologically or spiritually. Your understanding and interpretation of Scripture then have no connection to authentic Christian teaching.

The canon of Sacred Scripture rests on the authority of the Church teaching in obedience to the command of Jesus, “Teach!”

monkallover.blogspot.com/2007/04/creed-came-before-canon-canon-stands-on.html

 

[TertiumQuid]

I hate to admit this but I think Websters assertions are wrong. I found a book about Cardinal Ximenes, Pope Leo X and the Complutensian Polygot. It was on Questia com. From what I read there is no preface condemning the Apocrypha books. What Pope Leo does condemn are pseudo-Apocrypha books. But who really knows… perhaps the Vatican isn’t telling the truth (maybe they fudged the real documents). After all the Vatican has all of these secret documents (I tried to check some of them out on the Vatican web-site) that the average person isn’t permitted to read.

Pope Leo X wasn’t exactly a paragon of virtue. A number of his Cardinals did plot to assassinate him.

Hi Nancie-

William Webster responds:

" 2) The second issue I want to address is the charge that I am misrepresenting the facts regarding the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis. If you recall this was the Bible that was published by Cardinal Ximenes in Spain in the early 16th century. It was published in 1520 with the sanction of pope Leo X. I had stated that the Preface of that work included comments that excluded the apocrypha from the canon. Apparently, some have made comments in a public forum suggesting that I am wrong about the Preface. But such accusations are completely without merit as anyone who might take the time to investigate the contents of the work in question would quickly discover. The Biblia complutensis is a 6-volume work and the following is its bibliographical information: *Biblia complutensis *(Rome: Gregorian University Polyglott Press, 1983-1984), Edition Facsimileed.

There is a Preface to this work titled “Prologus ad lectorem”, or, “Preface to the reader”. In Preface 3b it states:

Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:

As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.

The books referred to that were listed as outside the canon were the books of the apocrypha. The Preface gives a widely used quote from the Middle Ages which is derived from Jerome that the apocryphal books, while not included in the canon, were sanctioned to be read in the Churches for the purposes of edification. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this:

“In his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)."

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[Wisdom]

You know its almost hilarious how much time we spend responding the magisterium of WIlliam Webster around here. As we already discussed way back when the Cardinal refers to the authority and opinion of Jerome and not the church and yes we readily admit according to Jerome they were the apocrypha. But what is not admitted is that prior to Jerome these books were never called the apocrypha and no church council has ever declared these books apocrypha. In Bible commentaries even those who agree with Jerome are quick to point out it is the opinion of Jerome and not the church that those books were apocrypha.
Webster is not a primary source people he is a hack apologist who had some controversial interpretations and findings in the past. Why should catholics take him seriously. Its not like Protestants take the writings of Karl Keating seriously and I think he’s a far better apologist than Webster is of course. Of course Keating does have the humility as he often says he only restates what the church already states he does not state his private findings. Webster seems to specialize in private findings and conclusions. He takes a kernal of truth and blows it out of context and exagerrate the conclusion that many protestant historians would disagree with him or have entirely different conclusions.

 

[Wisdom]

“In his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)."

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

And this is something new? No its not we already admitted this was the opinion of Jerome and those who were Jeromist appealed to his opinion yet it was not the opinion of the church nor did they appeal to the church in their dissent they appealed to the opinion of Jerome big difference, no church council nor church ruling called these books apocrypha yet Webster does not include this nor the fact it was never called apocrypha by the fathers prior to Jerome. He leaves out big time that this is the context the Catholic Encyclopedia treats this dissent as he leaves out.

And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

This is a fact protestant FF Bruce readily admits what we have here is a purely academic debate among Jerome aficionados Bruce states for the ordinary catholic the duteros were just scripture and there was no controversy. For the everyday catholic and those not entrenched in the Jerome crowd most mid evils were in the Augustine or Aquinas camp by the way, Jerome had his fans but was on a lesser scale and the dissent on this issue was not as large as you have portrayed though it did appear from time to time. This would be like Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter declaring in their private papers that the Latin Mass is superior to the Norvos Ordo and a Bishop of theirs signing off on it. That an interior opinion it is not a universal catholic teaching approved by the Pope or the magisterium its not on par with Council yet Webster tries to deceive that private academic debates are on par with Councils and Magisterium rulings they are not and anybody familiar with how the church really works would state this but he dishonestly does not mention this nor the context on how the catholic encyclopedia treated the Jeromites and their appeal to Jerome not the church. And for this we waste many hours due to the dishonest magisterium known as William Webster hack apologist.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Wisdom:

You know its almost hilarious how much time we spend responding the magisterium of WIlliam Webster around here.

-snip-

Wisdom:

Webster is not a primary source people he is a hack apologist who had some controversial interpretations and findings in the past.

I posted the information about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis, because a contributor to this forum said Webster’s claims on this were wrong. Then someone else chimed in as well. Then, someone else said,

“We have raised this issue a few times on this thread that Webster sometimes does not use primary source material and many times resorts to personal opinion rather than exact quotes from primary sources.”

So, in regard to these charges about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis, I posted Webster’s clarified position on this:

There is a Preface to this work titled “Prologus ad lectorem”, or, “Preface to the reader”. In Preface 3b it states:

Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:

As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.

This is a good lesson for you folks to learn before you accuse people of not telling the truth, or being a “hack apologist”. The clarified information has been presented. Which of you will step forward and apologize?

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[MrS]

This is a good lesson for you folks to learn before you accuse people of not telling the truth, or being a “hack apologist”. The clarified information has been presented. Which of you will step forward and apologize?

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

I apologize for your numerous selective verse selection, and your seemingly huge misunderstanding of things Catholic.

Other than that, keep up your zealous work… it does help keep our swords sharp, and our minds well-tuned:thumbsup:

Further, I would highly suggest an addition to your library… “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” by Gary Michuta… available at www.handsonapologetics.com . Surely you have works from both prospectives as you study and learn… and this would be a good addition.

.

 

[Mannyfit75]

-snip-

I posted the information about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis, because a contributor to this forum said Webster’s claims on this were wrong. Then someone else chimed in as well. Then, someone else said,

“We have raised this issue a few times on this thread that Webster sometimes does not use primary source material and many times resorts to personal opinion rather than exact quotes from primary sources.”

So, in regard to these charges about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis, I posted Webster’s clarified position on this:

There is a Preface to this work titled “Prologus ad lectorem”, or, “Preface to the reader”. In Preface 3b it states:

Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:

As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.

This is a good lesson for you folks to learn before you accuse people of not telling the truth, or being a “hack apologist”. The clarified information has been presented. Which of you will step forward and apologize?

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

Yet, these none citations are official Church document concerning Deutrocanonical Books…

They are merely commentaries which are not as binding as the Council of Carthage, Hippo, Florence…

 

[Mannyfit75]

-snip-

I posted the information about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis, because a contributor to this forum said Webster’s claims on this were wrong. Then someone else chimed in as well. Then, someone else said,

“We have raised this issue a few times on this thread that Webster sometimes does not use primary source material and many times resorts to personal opinion rather than exact quotes from primary sources.”

So, in regard to these charges about Cardinal Ximenes and the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis, I posted Webster’s clarified position on this:

There is a Preface to this work titled “Prologus ad lectorem”, or, “Preface to the reader”. In Preface 3b it states:

Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:

As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.

This is a good lesson for you folks to learn before you accuse people of not telling the truth, or being a “hack apologist”. The clarified information has been presented. Which of you will step forward and apologize?

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

Yet, none these citations are official Church document concerning Deutrocanonical Books…

 

[Wisdom]

I apologize that you worship at the magesterium of William Webster I did not accuse him of not being accurate here another did. I rightly pointed out he has been a hack apologist in the past who misrepresents history and the church fathers and sometimes does not use primary sources. I also rightly pointed out his out of context use of catholic encylclopeida here as he failes to point out what FF Bruce and the Encyclopedia does point out this was an academic issue among Jeromist scholars and not someting that was on par with councils and had no bearing on the canoncity of the church for the rest of catholcisim the dueteros were scripture plain and simple.
The Jeromist did not appeal for their authority of the church but always referred to this as the opinion of Jerome. For instance Cajetan is confusing to read if one does not differentiate the difference one place he says the church canon is thus ie with duteros he calls them books of the church and another place he says the church canon per Jerome is thus and designates them apocrapha? So which is it? Look the ivory towere academics of midevil times can make your head spin without a context and the context is this the private opinions of the intellecual elite is one thing the ordinary teaching of the church is quite another. Even today we have dissent among theolgians and the write about it and they dance around it by saying church teaching is thus by the opinion of another dissenter is thus. Some things never change. But those ignorant of history and context or just plain hack apologist misrepresent the issue. Thus no apology because none is deserved and I did not make a claim that the polyglot did not claim such things in fact I ultiamtly agreed they did but they were taken out of context by a certain hack apologist.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I apologize for your numerous selective verse selection, and your seemingly huge misunderstanding of things Catholic.Other than that, keep up your zealous work… it does help keep our swords sharp, and our minds well-tuned:thumbsup: Further, I would highly suggest an addition to your library… “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” by Gary Michuta… available at www.handsonapologetics.com. Surely you have works from both prospectives as you study and learn… and this would be a good addition.

Your comments do more to you than me. Yes, I do have Mr. Michuta’s new book, i’ve had it for probably about a week. Do you have it? If so, a simple test would be for you tell me what (if anything) Michuta says about Cardinal Ximenes. Does he accuse Webster of lying? Does he make the same silly claim that was made in this thread that none of you will admit was clearly innacurate, and slanderous?

Pick a page, and I’ll tell you what’s in Michuta’s new book. I’m sure you wouldn’t ask me to buy a book you don’t own.

Not only do I have Gary’s book, I saw him debate James White in person a few years back. I also have the audio tapes from that debate. I also link to both Michuta’s web page and blog off my blog, which I read regularly. Do you own any of William Webster’s books? I really doubt it.

How do you expect Protestants to take Catholics seriously with a response like you’ve given? Careful with that “sword” of yours.

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[Wisdom]

Ah are you the same James Swan who works for James White?
The Same James Swan who when would not offer me even one apolgetic tape at a reduced price when I was exploring Christianity when I was having financial difficulties? You thumbed your nose at my propistion at the time Even though I promised to pay you latter?
Well thanks to your greed and James White and the generosity of the Bible Christian Society who offered a lot of materails for nothing I am a catholic who happens to be debating your false claims again and again. Well things are beter now and I paid the Bible Christian Society latter, the same propisition you turned down. Well I know you and your organization for what you are greed and false witness. Thank God for John Martgnoni whose was far more interested in my salvation than making a buck. I am sure your deny this as you deny other truths but its a true story.
There are other protestants that are not hack apolgist like James WHite and WIlliam Webster and yourself. So why would we waste our money on your biased observations? There are more objective protestant sources to go to. ANd besides you were very rude and crude to a a spritual seeker when he was a little light in the wallet.
It seems you were only interested in sharing your faith when it didn’t cost you anything? Again you could not spare one tape?
And your post of your debates here in catholic answers that are taken out of context and selectively without our full responses and explanations are another chance of cheap shot tactics. I challenge all seekers to do what I did ask for tapes from the Bible Christian Society for virtually nothing and study what John has to say.

 

[TertiumQuid]

For the first time since I’ve been on the boards, I came very close to using the alert feature and reporting Wisdom’s last post. Perhaps though, we can avoid such silliness.

I contribute articles for James White’s aomin.blog, but I am not employed by Dr. White. I’m not sure who you are confusing me with.

To my knowledge, I have never spoken to you before, unless it was here via these Catholic Answers discussion boards (which I have visited off and on for a few years). I can assure you, I have nothing to do with selling tapes, books, or whatever. I live hundreds of miles away from Alpha and Omega Ministries. I would need a plane to get there and answer the phone.

That being said, much of the same material found in either Dr. White’s books or tapes can be found for free on his website.

I find it hard to fathom that discount tapes or books are a factor in conversion, but I guess it’s possible. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons often give out free material, and people do convert to these cults. I would much rather study the Bible, the very word of God, and follow it, rather than tapes, books, or materials put out by a particular organization.

Simply because discount tapes are not provided does not mean a particular organization is comprised of “hack apologists”. Dr. White and William Webster are Godly men who do very good work.

On the other hand, I would be careful placing your faith in any fallible human or apologist. If I were you, I’d simply study the Bible and history, and evaluate all arguments and facts put forth by everybody. This way, we could actually rationally discuss Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo.

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

Ah are you the same James Swan who works for James White?
The Same James Swan who when would not offer me even one apolgetic tape at a reduced price when I was exploring Christianity when I was having financial difficulties? You thumbed your nose at my propistion at the time Even though I promised to pay you latter?
Well thanks to your greed and James White and the generosity of the Bible Christian Society who offered a lot of materails for nothing I am a catholic who happens to be debating your false claims again and again. Well things are beter now and I paid the Bible Christian Society latter, the same propisition you turned down. Well I know you and your organization for what you are greed and false witness. Thank God for John Martgnoni whose was far more interested in my salvation than making a buck. I am sure your deny this as you deny other truths but its a true story.
There are other protestants that are not hack apolgist like James WHite and WIlliam Webster and yourself. So why would we waste our money on your biased observations? There are more objective protestant sources to go to. ANd besides you were very rude and crude to a a spritual seeker when he was a little light in the wallet.
It seems you were only interested in sharing your faith when it didn’t cost you anything? Again you could not spare one tape?
And your post of your debates here in catholic answers that are taken out of context and selectively without our full responses and explanations are another chance of cheap shot tactics. I challenge all seekers to do what I did ask for tapes from the Bible Christian Society for virtually nothing and study what John has to say.

 

[Wisdom]

For the first time since I’ve been on the boards, I came very close to using the alert feature and reporting Wisdom’s last post. Perhaps though, we can avoid such silliness.

I contribute articles for James White’s aomin.blog, but I am not employed by Dr. White. I’m not sure who you are confusing me with.

To my knowledge, I have never spoken to you before, unless it was here via these Catholic Answers discussion boards (which I have visited off and on for a few years). I can assure you, I have nothing to do with selling tapes, books, or whatever. I live hundreds of miles away from Alpha and Omega Ministries. I would need a plane to get there and answer the phone.

That being said, much of the same material found in either Dr. White’s books or tapes can be found for free on his website.

I find it hard to fathom that discount tapes or books are a factor in conversion, but I guess it’s possible. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons often give out free material, and people do convert to these cults. I would much rather study the Bible, the very word of God, and follow it, rather than tapes, books, or materials put out by a particular organization.

Simply because discount tapes are not provided does not mean a particular organization is comprised of “hack apologists”. Dr. White and William Webster are Godly men who do very good work.

On the other hand, I would be careful placing your faith in any fallible human or apologist. If I were you, I’d simply study the Bible and history, and evaluate all arguments and facts put forth by everybody. This way, we could actually rationally discuss Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo.

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

You seem to be overly familiar with alpha and omega ministries and yes your entier diatribe here is from the James White playbook its as if I am speaking to James White assistant at Alpha and Omega Ministires. The infalliability of of WIlliam Webster and James White are your usual trump card along with posting info on your blog. Sorry if this awful coincidence is just that but somehow I feel like this has all been done before or is it you guys seem to be all clones in your anti-catholic tactics. Look if its not you apologize but the expereince was actual and your responses are overly familiar… This line that James White and WIlliam Webster are godly men and that my motive was suspect because they personally felt books and tapes were meaningless in converstions but on the other hand sold them to convert others is another tactic used by Alpha and Omega’s assistance. Man if your not working for them you should as they use the exact same mantras. Of course the fact you used many of the same apologetic materials as Aplah and Omega is another suscipion. Oh well tell your twin in bizarro land that he has an imposter.

 

[Janet_S]

Hi Nancie-

William Webster responds:

" 2) The second issue I want to address is the charge that I am misrepresenting the facts regarding the Preface to the Polyglott Biblia complutensis. If you recall this was the Bible that was published by Cardinal Ximenes in Spain in the early 16th century. It was published in 1520 with the sanction of pope Leo X. I had stated that the Preface of that work included comments that excluded the apocrypha from the canon. Apparently, some have made comments in a public forum suggesting that I am wrong about the Preface. But such accusations are completely without merit as anyone who might take the time to investigate the contents of the work in question would quickly discover. The Biblia complutensis is a 6-volume work and the following is its bibliographical information: *Biblia complutensis *(Rome: Gregorian University Polyglott Press, 1983-1984), Edition Facsimileed.

There is a Preface to this work titled “Prologus ad lectorem”, or, “Preface to the reader”. In Preface 3b it states:

Atvero libri extra canonem quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit, Graecam tamen habent scripturam, sed cum duplici latina interpretatione, altera beati Hieronymi, altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum, eo modo quo in caeteris.

English translation:

As for the books outside the Canon, which the Church admits/receives more for the edification of the people than for the purpose of confirming the doctrines of the Church, they are in Greek, but with two Latin translations, one by blessed Jerome, the other and interlinear word for word, as elsewhere.

The books referred to that were listed as outside the canon were the books of the apocrypha. The Preface gives a widely used quote from the Middle Ages which is derived from Jerome that the apocryphal books, while not included in the canon, were sanctioned to be read in the Churches for the purposes of edification. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this:

“In his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)."

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

I’m not sure how much of this thread you have read. Since your response regards a post by Nanci Lew, you should that she is not a Catholic nor is she a member of any Christian religion. She is here to learn.

Gary Michuta said the Glossia was a scholarly tool, but it was not an authoritative Church document. It was influential because many scholars read it. Gary also said there were favorable comments about the deuterocanonical books in the Glossia too. You can read the post here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2051239&postcount=282

Gary asked the following question. Maybe you can answer this:

Here is question for you. If the Glossia stated that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, would you accept it as Scripture simply because the Glossia said so? If you wouldn’t, why do you think it has authority when it “rejects” them? I put rejects in quotes because the Glossia also includes favorable quotations as well.

 

[MrS]

Your comments do more to you than me. Yes, I do have Mr. Michuta’s new book, i’ve had it for probably about a week. Do you have it?

Certainly I have it… I even read it (dry subject that it is)… and found it easy to follow.

If so, a simple test would be for you tell me what (if anything) Michuta says about Cardinal Ximenes. Does he accuse Webster of lying? Does he make the same silly claim that was made in this thread that none of you will admit was clearly innacurate, and slanderous?

The book is on the authenticity of the deutrocanonicals… not on answering slander and misconceptions.

Gary Michuta did on wonderful job in that arena when he responded to the farcial work of James McCarthy (Gospel According to Rome) in his Gospel According to James McCarthy. I would encourage readers to acquire that book also… you too if you do not already have it.

Pick a page, and I’ll tell you what’s in Michuta’s new book. I’m sure you wouldn’t ask me to buy a book you don’t own.

True… and the same holds for three Baptist friends of mine… they now have the book because I gave it to them. Two have read the book already… and have become very silent where once they were proud-n-loud about 66-not-73.

Not only do I have Gary’s book, I saw him debate James White in person a few years back. I also have the audio tapes from that debate.

And I have the CDs, and the DVD… which is a study in character… Mr/Dr James White “lost” in his pensive demenure and often changing the subject… Gary Michuta solid in a presentation that gives the facts and reason to support the 73 position which the Church has continually held (long before Trent).

I also link to both Michuta’s web page and blog off my blog, which I read regularly. Do you own any of William Webster’s books? I really doubt it.

I have been told that the only work by Webster worth having is his dictionary…

How do you expect Protestants to take Catholics seriously with a response like you’ve given? Careful with that “sword” of yours.

I don’t expect any staunch protestant to take a Catholic seriously… we can only present a “position” developed from logic, from reason, from Truth, and supported by our Bible. Then you can choose to take that seriously or continue to reject it.

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[Janet_S]

Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

I have a question for you. We haven’t had many Protestants participate on this thread. We had a few at the beginning, but Kaycee is (for the most part) the only Protestant who has remained. What is your position.

1. Did the Catholic Church add 7 books to the canon of Scipture at the Council of Trent?
   or
2. Did the Catholic Church add 73 books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent?

It can’t be both, but all the Protestant arguments I hear make both charges.

Which is it? I asked Kaycee, and he never answered.

 

[MrS]

Simply because discount tapes are not provided does not mean a particular organization is comprised of “hack apologists”. Dr. White and William Webster are Godly men who do very good work.

On the other hand, I would be careful placing your faith in any fallible human or apologist. If I were you, I’d simply study the Bible and history, and evaluate all arguments and facts put forth by everybody. This way, we could actually rationally discuss Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo.

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

Sounds like a recommendation to not place any faith in Mr White (where did he get his Dr from?? ), or yourself either.

Thank you, I will take your advice.

.

 

[mardukm]

Dear All,

I saw the title of this thread, and I wanted to contribute the following. If this has already been discussed, please forgive me.

The fact of the matter is, the early Church distinguished between two types of Holy Scripture - canonical, and non-canonical. The CANONICAL Scriptures were specifically used for doctrinal purposes. The non-canonical Scriptures were used merely for edification. BUT BOTH WERE CONSIDERED HOLY SCRIPTURE BY THE CHURCH.

Webster is engaging in a masterful bit of evasion and eisegesis. The fact of the matter is, Pope St. Gregory quoted Ecclesiastes and Tobit AS SCRIPTURE. Indeed, they were not called canonical, but for Webster to cast his lot completely on that fact is unscholarly and ignorant.

Blessings,
Marduk