K
kaycee
Guest
I see you have taken the low road. I prefer to discuss the actual facts rather than to “refute” by name calling. Since the facts are not on Romes side I can understand your frustration.
- Status
K
kaycee
Guest
Dont recall seeing those questions pointed at me, as I was being hit from 5 different people at once.
I believe Trent raised the Deuts from “OK to read in Church but not for doctrinal use” to God Breathed scripture to be used for doctrine.
K
kaycee
Guest
AGAIN, Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the entire church. Are you more of an official expert than the New Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…for example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.”
M
MrS
Guest
I believe that you believe in error
K
kaycee
Guest
I think before before throwing mud at William Webster you should realize that his main point is the Deuts were not to be used for doctrinal purposes.
It appears there is some semantic confusion by the terms scriptural or canonical. Whatever you want to call them, the Deuts were clearly second class “scripture” used for edification and not for doctrine. It appears Trent raised their status 1500 years later.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This is an empty assertion with nothing to support it.
Perhaps you’d like to start a separate thread on each of the “beliefs, creeds, theology, dogma (or whatever)” that you believe are based on speculation, and we’ll go through them carefully one by one.
You may fire when ready.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear kaycee,
I have read Webster’s book. That is not his view. He uses Pope St. Gregory to state not merely that the Deuteros are not canonical, but to prove that the Deuteros are not Scripture.
Do you want me to quote him?
Blessings
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
How many times have we issued this challenge to people like Nancy Lew. I doubt she will start any new thread on anything she believes is based on speculation. But then again, she could prove me wrong. I am hoping she does prove me wrong, but I won’t hold my breath…
K
kaycee
Guest
Correct, not scripture, not to be used for doctrinal purposes, not God Breathed, but good for edification.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear kaycee,
No. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils ALREADY gave approval for the Deuterocanonical books to be regarded as Holy Scripture. What Trent did was DOGMATIZE the matter - i.e., make it a rule of faith under anathema.
Blessings
J
Janet_S
Guest
Kaycee,
I asked it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2084547&postcount=361
–Make up your mind, it’s either/or:
Either the CC added 7 books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent or the CC added 73 books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent. It can’t be both. Which do you think it was?
So, to paraphrase your answer, the Church elevated the 7 books from “ok to read in Church” to “God-breathed Scripture.” You are more in the camp that the Church “added” 7 books at the Council of Trent.
Now I want you to understand how your argument keeps shifting from argument A to argument B. On the one hand–
In argument A we Catholics say: the Church’s position did not change, the 7 deuterocanonical books were accepted as Scripture by the Church at the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Florence. These books are listed in the council documents along with the 66 books Protestants now accept, and they are not distinguished as having a sub-canonical status. Here are the council documents as evidence.
Then you say: no, these Councils do not count. They are not binding. The Church made no decision until Trent.
Only rational conclusion is: The Church added 73 books to the canon of Scripture at the Council of Trent.
Then the argument shifts. In argument B you say: the Church changed the status of the 7 deutercanonical books at the Council of Trent from “ok to read in Church” to “God-breathed Scripture.”
We say: show us evidence from an official Church document that the 7 deutercanonical books were considered only “ok to read in Church” (but non-God-breathed Scripture) before the Council of Trent. Where can I find this “original” canon of Scripture? The evidence will have to be from Church council documents or a decree from the Pope, as Catholics look to the Church Magisterium as the authority necessary to determine the canon of Scripture. We cannot rely on theologians or scholars (including Jerome) to tell us this.
Then you say: Jerome (or Cardinal Cajetan or Athanasius) wrote somewhere that the 7 deutercanonical books were suitable to read in Church, but were not suitable for determining doctrine. At the Council of Trent, the Church decided to change its position and deemed these books to a higher status–to that of “God-breathed Scripture.”
Only rational conclusion is: the Church changed its position and added 7 books to the status of “God-breathed Scripture.”
But the problem is, if argument A is correct, argument B cannot be correct. The only rational conclusion from this argument A is that the Council of Trent is the first Church council that decided the canon of Scripture. No books could be added or “elevated” since there was no canon before this time. 73 books were added.
If argment B is correct, argument A cannot be correct. Argument B depends on the understanding that there was a canon of Scripture before the Council of Trent, and that the CC changed its position on the canon and “elevated” or added 7 books to the original canon. But the problem with this argument is there is no official Church document that gives an “original” canon of 66 books (or 66 “God-breathed” books and 7 “ok to read in Church” books) like you claim.
You have argued both ways, and it doesn’t make sense.
W
Wisdom
Guest
Since all your apologetics is a cut and paste form alpha & Omega ministries I can understand your hyper sensitivty to criitcism of their works. The facts are on our side you just fail to recognize that fact. Luther failed to recognize not only the duteros of the OT but the NT as well a very Inconvenient Truth for you guys. You have adopted Rome’s postion of the NT dueteors ie James, Jude Hebrews and Revelation which Luther rejected but accepted his postion on the OT which makes you haveing one foot in on Rome’s side and another foot in the Rabbis of Jamnia who rejected Christ.
W
Wisdom
Guest
The dueteros for many including St Augustine and all the early church fathers pre Nicea were on the same level as the other OT scriptures and the council of africa made no differing status of the OT books. Neither did any of the councils not Florence nor Trent. Your flat out lying when you said Trent raised their status as it makes no proclaimation on what status it is just like the other councils it is merely scripture. It was the opinion of some esepecially after Jerome that theri was a disctinction to be made. The disctinction was one of private opinion no council adressed a clear cut distinction yet you say they did, Show me in the councils prior to Trent that there was a distinction founded by the church you will not find it because you have lied. You will find the distinction made by private opinion. If Trent elevated the status just where in Trent is the status elevated? It does not mention an elevation nor does the other councils say the dueteros where lower distinction. The burden of proof is on you when you make such comments that people like Webster all to loosely make without solid footing this is sloppy scholarship and something you too easily fall for. WEbster has bewtiched you into falling for a false premise. Please think before you cut and past such inaccurate dribble.
K
kaycee
Guest
Actually the New Catholic Encyclopedia says the canon was unclear until Trent with the more educated Doctors of the Church claiming the deuts are not used for doctrine.
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…for example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.”
Do you not agree with the New Catholic Encyclopedia?
Your statement is not logical. The Church had a working canon from the end of the 1st century! Your faulty assumption that a “council” must convene to determine an official canon or else there is no canon is simply reading back into history your concept of todays Catholic church rules. Again Catholic historians claim that uncertainty existed until Trent. Apparently you are not in unity with that position.
Do councils determine binding doctrine and canon from goose bumps, hair rising on the back of their necks? Are Godly theologians and scholars NOT part of the examination of scripture???This seems to be the point where logic is left behind and councils and popes can trump best evidence and be infallible doing it.
Unfortunately, your assumption that councils and Popes are infallible leads you into very untenable positions.
I am sorry but am having a difficult time following your logic.
The Church always had a working Canon. Councils are not needed to make the Word of God, Scripture. Catholic historians agree with me in saying there was confusion until Trent about the Deuts. Unfortunately your doctrine forces you to believe that councils get a magic whammy to make their decisions infallible.
K
kaycee
Guest
Do you really need to throw invective and Ad Homs around like rice at a wedding?
In a strict literal sense there is no wording indicating elevation or 2 levels, my bad.
Maybe I should just say they were wrong to include the second canon, with the first.
Do you think B.F. Westcot was bewitched by Webster too?
Renowned scholar, B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:
"This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.
J
Janet_S
Guest
Councils did not make the Word of God, but God revealed the canon of Scripture through the Councils. How else did He reveal it? You say I am “reading back into history your concept of todays Catholic church rules.” But meeting in councils has always been the way the Church operated and is evidenced at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, the decisions of which I assume you accept. On the contrary, I think you are reading back into history your concept of today’s multi-denominational non-Catholic Church–the one who has no need of Popes, creeds, or councils. Show me where I can find evidence that this Church ever existed in the first centuries? The historical Church did meet in councils to settle doctrinal matters. This is not just my opinion, this is a fact.Actually the New Catholic Encyclopedia says the canon was unclear until Trent with the more educated Doctors of the Church claiming the deuts are not used for doctrine.
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…for example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.”
Do you not agree with the New Catholic Encyclopedia?
Your statement is not logical. The Church had a working canon from the end of the 1st century! Your faulty assumption that a “council” must convene to determine an official canon or else there is no canon is simply reading back into history your concept of todays Catholic church rules. Again Catholic historians claim that uncertainty existed until Trent. Apparently you are not in unity with that position.
This seems to be the point where logic is left behind and councils and popes can trump best evidence and be infallible doing it.
Unfortunately, your assumption that councils and Popes are infallible leads you into very untenable positions.
I am sorry but am having a difficult time following your logic.
The Church always had a working Canon. Councils are not needed to make the Word of God, Scripture. Catholic historians agree with me in saying there was confusion until Trent about the Deuts. Unfortunately your doctrine forces you to believe that councils get a magic whammy to make their decisions infallible.
This is the problem in your argument that I’m pointing out. We show you council documents prior to Trent that list canons identical to Trent, and you refuse these as evidence saying “the canon wasn’t settled until Trent.” Then you claim the Church had a “working canon,” but you provide no council documents to show that the “working canon” is the Protestant canon that excludes the deutercanonical books.
I’m just saying it can’t be both–you can’t say both that there was no canon before Trent and that there was a “working canon.” Pick your argument and stick with it.
N
Nancie_Lew
Guest
You are correct. I have Pope Leo X mixed up with Pope Leo the Great. My apologies. I’m not a Christian. I posted on this thread because I wanted to know what the Deutrocanonical books were. Since Kaycee was being blitzkrieged by the Catholics I decided to take her side in the debate.
Do a search on the Synod of Braga, in Spain, held in the year 563, it anathematizes any one “who reads, approves, or defends the injurious fictions (pseudo apocrypha books) set in circulation by heretics”. It was Pope Leo the Great…my mistake.
N
Nancie_Lew
Guest
I don’t know if this was brought up earlier in the thread but contrary to the Catholic Church it seems that as early as about 170 A.D. there was a listing of the New Testament Canon known as the Muratonian Fragment. It was written in Latin and mentions certain works as fictitious or contested. Sounds like the works that were contested were the apocrypha books.
N
Nancie_Lew
Guest
The Glossia rejects the deutrocanonicals so why ask me a speculative question? The Glossa ordinaria is part of the Gratian Decretum and is an unrivaled compilation of canon law, principles and authority with a collection of nearly 3,800 texts touching on all areas of church discipline and regulation. It was the basic text on which the theologians of canon law lectured and commented in the universities. Sounds pretty impressive to me.
W
Wisdom
Guest
Uh maybe you haven’t noticed but Westcott wasn’t that impressed by the inclusion of the NT dueteros as well and sees major holes in how they were included into the canon as he apparetnly thinks the church does not have authority to sudenly include them at the african councils after they were consistently dismissed before meaning their historicty was questioanble to say the least by the questioning and doubtful scholar that Westcott is in regards to these questionable books of the OT and NT canon. I mean if your going to be consistent like Westcott and Luther you would too have to drop the NT dueters also but your a hypocrite and try to have it both ways. At least Luther and Westcott only appear to be sure of the protocanonical books of the NT and don’t try to claim the duteros of the NT got magical inclusion by Council which is the way you potray the OT dueteros. Be consistent Like Luther and reject our NT dueteros as you clearly don’t believe in church authority over the canon.
Brooke Foss Westcott:
**
"Seven books of the New Testament, as is well known, have been received into the Canon on evidence less complete than that by which the others are supported. In the controversy which has been raised about their claims to Apostolic authority much stress has been laid on their internal character. But such a method of reasoning is commonly inconclusive, and inferences are drawn on both sides with equal confidence. In every instance the result will be influenced by preconceived notions of the state of the early Church . . .
Code:
The idea of forming the disputed books into a Deutero-canon of the New Testament (advocated by many Roman Catholics in spite of the Council of Trent, and by many of the early reformers) . . . is evidently either a mere confession that the question is incapable of solution, or a re-statement of it in other words . . . It involves a manifest confusion of ideas to compensate for a deficiency of historical proof by a lower standard of Canonicity. The extent of the divine authority of a book cannot be made to vary with the completeness of the proof of its genuineness. The genuineness must be admitted before the authority can have any positive value, which from its nature cannot admit of degrees; and till the gen uineness be established the authority remains in abeyance."**
(A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprint, 1980 of the 6th edition of 1889, 351-353)Now, if this subjective criteria of canonicity is regarded as unworkable and unacceptable, (whether is be of the catholic canon or the canon of Martin Luther as you reject both,) then the Protestant necessarily falls back on some species of Church Tradition. That essentially boils down to the choice of Orthodoxy or Catholicism (both of which accept “apocryphal” books as canonical). The same councils and popes who authoritatively declared the canonicity of the 27 NT books also declared the canonicity of the seven disputed OT books. Protestants accept the authority of the former but not the latter. On what basis? They can come up with all sorts of theories and explanations why, but they will contradict each other, just as they do regarding almost all doctrines except those which they hold in common with Catholics in the first place. In the fnal analysis, however, they will accept these 27 NT books and 39 OT books (exluding the seven from the Deuterocanon) simply because that is their own tradition, and the books as they see them listed in their Bibles. This is circular reasoning, and can never be conclusive. Protestants can never offer a compelling reason to reject Catholic tradition regarding the canon which does not backfire against their own chosen tradition, because the latter can always be shown to be far more arbitrary and non-binding than the former.
- Status