DID Dr. ART SIPPO ANSWERED THE POINTS OF WILLIAM WEBSTER?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flewen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
These links contain exhaustive writings. Perhaps you could provide a specific point that Webster made that you don’t think Sippo covered.
 
MarcoPolo said:
These links contain exhaustive writings. Perhaps you could provide a specific point that Webster made that you don’t think Sippo covered.
Click to expand...
I see that Dr. Sippo did not even answered any of the claims of Mr. Webster:
*
"Art Sippo is trying to establish that the Canon passed by Hippo / Carthage and ratified by Pope Zosimus established once and for all the Canon for the Catholic Church and that subsequent Councils merely reiterate it. It seems as though there is disagreement within Catholicism as to when the Canon was established definitively.*

Question: Where is that ‘certainty’ when you need it?

To Sippo’s point that ALL Councils that cite the books of the Canon reiterate the same list as was passed from Hippo / Carthage and approved by Zosimus; but why are NO direct references made in any of the Councilar Pronouncements stating that the definition of Zosimus (and / or of Hippo / Carthage) still stand(s)? In other words, why don’t the Councils of Basle / Florence and others DIRECTLY cite the “infallible” definition of the Canon instead of (or in addition to) an enumeration of the books? If the definition of Zosimus was recognized by the fathers of other Ecumenical Councils as being binding on the Universal Church, why don’t any of them cite Zosimus directly? That would be a much more direct appeal and would also lend credence to the early acceptance of Papal Infallibility. Instead what we have is a series of events which undercut support for both the early definition of the Canon AND Papal Infallibility."

can anyone answer this one?
 
As the abused party in this thread, I think I will answer this mysel.

I am afraid that this isa another straw man argument from Protestants. The Canon from Hippo enumerating the Biblical books of hte OT and NT is explicit and a matter of historical record. It was reiterated by every one of the susequent 16 North African Councils which culminated in 418 AD. Shortly after the last council int he Series Pope Zozimus declared these canons produced by the North African Councils to be official Church teaching. That is why they are included in the Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum.

The Council of Nicea II in 787 AD reconfirmed the teachings of the “Fathers and Doctors”. The experts (e.g., Protestant Henry Percival) state clearly that this included the list of 85 Patristic sources mentioned at the Qunisext Council. The canons from the North African Councils are among those 85.

Several Ecumenical Councils quoted from the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. There is a list of these in my second response to Websters ravings which can be found here:

art-of-attack.blogspot.com/search?q=webster

The question of why Pope Zosimus is not referred to directly by subsequent Councils is inane and irrelevent. All the relevent documents were discussed in the ACTA of the various councils leading up to the drafting of the final documents. The Councils proclaimed the Canon of Scripture by their own authority and in light of the Traditional practice of the Church. If someone asks you if this is your wife you do not go back and get your marriage license to prove it. You introduce him to her and say who she is.

Webster is an uneducated man who has no familiarity with either the Patristic or Medieval periods. He does not understand either the ecclesiatical, literary, or theoogical conventions of those times. He is atypical Fundamentalist reading texts out of context and making allegations that a trained Patristic Scholar would dismiss as childish and ignorant

.Art Sippo MD, MPH
 
AAC08 said:
I see that Dr. Sippo did not even answered any of the claims of Mr. Webster:

"Art Sippo is trying to establish that the Canon passed by Hippo / Carthage and ratified by Pope Zosimus established once and for all the Canon for the Catholic Church and that subsequent Councils merely reiterate it. It seems as though there is disagreement within Catholicism as to when the Canon was established definitively.

Question: Where is that ‘certainty’ when you need it?

To Sippo’s point that ALL Councils that cite the books of the Canon reiterate the same list as was passed from Hippo / Carthage and approved by Zosimus; but why are NO direct references made in any of the Councilar Pronouncements stating that the definition of Zosimus (and / or of Hippo / Carthage) still stand(s)? In other words, why don’t the Councils of Basle / Florence and others DIRECTLY cite the “infallible” definition of the Canon instead of (or in addition to) an enumeration of the books? If the definition of Zosimus was recognized by the fathers of other Ecumenical Councils as being binding on the Universal Church, why don’t any of them cite Zosimus directly? That would be a much more direct appeal and would also lend credence to the early acceptance of Papal Infallibility. Instead what we have is a series of events which undercut support for both the early definition of the Canon AND Papal Infallibility."

can anyone answer this one?
Click to expand...
As the abused party in this thread, I think I will answer this myself.

I am afraid that this is a another straw man argument from Protestants. The Canon from Hippo enumerating the Biblical books of the OT and NT is explicit and a matter of historical record. It was reiterated by every one of the subsequent 16 North African Councils which culminated in 418 AD. Shortly after the last council int he Series Pope Zozimus declared these canons produced by the North African Councils to be official Church teaching. That is why they are included in the Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum.

The Council of Nicea II in 787 AD reconfirmed the teachings of the “Fathers and Doctors”. The experts (e.g., Protestant Henry Percival) state clearly that this included the list of 85 Patristic sources mentioned at the Qunisext Council. The canons from the North African Councils are among those 85.

Several Ecumenical Councils quoted from the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. There is a list of these in my second response to Websters ravings which can be found here:

art-of-attack.blogspot.com/search?q=webster

The question of why Pope Zosimus is not referred to directly by subsequent Councils is inane and irrelevant. All the relevant documents were discussed in the ACTA of the various councils leading up to the drafting of the final documents. The Councils proclaimed the Canon of Scripture by their own authority and in light of the Traditional practice of the Church. If someone asks you if this is your wife you do not go back and get your marriage license to prove it. You introduce him to her and say who she is.

Webster is an uneducated man who has no familiarity with either the Patristic or Medieval periods. He does not understand either the ecclesiastical, literary, or theological conventions of those times. He is a typical Fundamentalist Protestant reading his own prejudices into texts and taking them out of context. He makes allegations that a trained Patristic Scholar would dismiss as childish and ignorant.

I implore interested parties to review my blog reference above for the whole story with references.

.Art Sippo MD, MPH
 
In modern times, when we can so simply refer to the original documents from the comfort of our homes, via the internet, it seems “obvious” that one would refer to the original document, rather than reiterating content contained therein. But back in the day, simply referring to the contents of another document would not be considered sufficient for communicating clearly. What if you didn’t have access to a comprehensive library of previous church documents. And most of the readers of a current document could not be counted on to have easy access to such a library (heck, I’m a total pack-rat when it comes to various documents, I can’t imagine how in old days one could begin to have readily available the large number of documents you would want to have to do any serious scholarship of Church teachings).

So, for the sake of clarity, it would only make sense that you would want to clearly and completely enumerate the books of the canon, even if they had been previously stated in a document that settled the matter.

Is this really all that difficult to understand, from the simple sake of trying to ensure that this once taught, and forever held truth remains in the forefront of the minds of those reading the new documents?

And this is especially true when you realize that things required scribes to make copies, so large and easy to access libraries were not the norm. Books and letters were expensive.
 
Folks-

This thread is more than a year old, and Dr. Sippo responded personally.

I think we can let this one go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top