K
kaycee
Guest
[/QUOTE]
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Would you care to document just when the Catholic Church (Ignatius circa AD 100) split from the Roman Catholic Church (or vice versa) and which Church today claims unbroken apostolic succession?
If you say “Orthodox” then at least you recognize that both the Roman (West/Latin) and the Orthodox (Greek/Byzantine/Eastern) existed contemporaneously/simultaneously until one (which one is open to debate) separated from the other.
So your claim that the early Catholic Church was ‘not Roman Catholic’ really means that it was not ‘solely’ Roman Catholic (by the definition we give today) but that there were the Eastern Catholics too. We Westerners claim primacy for the throne of Peter. That does not keep us, even from Orthodox eyes, from being considered as much “the one true Church” in the early Christian era as they consider their heritage as well.
If you’re saying there is another group which existed from the time of the apostles, is neither Roman Catholic nor orthodox, and has maintained unbroken apostolic succession until now, I most certainly would love to know which church you feel meets those criteria.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Ok…and you http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif know this, how? Exactly??
Yes, I know: Someone told you so…But, you see, if you haven’t been reading Boettner & Hislip, your source has.
Because the Deuterocanonicals [apocrypha to you] were in everybody’s Bible until about a hundred & 20 years ago. Only the order of books was different.
Now, nobody is going to force you to read them. But when you say that they weren’t in the Canon of Scripture?? Nope; http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gif that’s just plain wrong. They were always in there, until the Reformation, & any honest historian, without a bone to pick, will tell you so.
Z
Zooey
Guest
You do realize that more people were being burned at the stake (& killed in other horrible ways) for being Catholic, than for any other reason??
Catholics were far, far, less likely to execute Protestants than the reverse…
You have gotta find that honest historian…You know?? The one without a dog in the fight???
Z
Zooey
Guest
http://bestsmileys.com/nono/2.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/2.gif!!!Offcourse it was Catholic, just not Roman Catholic.
You know just as well as I do, that there is no difference!! Up until the time of the Reformation, there were only Catholics & Eastern Orthodox.
And those Catholics were in union with the Bishop of Rome. All of them. Regardless of what rite they might use in worship, there were Catholics & only Catholics. Roman Catholics.
Oyhttp://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/1.gif vay…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And that tells you that they were not in line with the teachings handed down by the apostles. That tells you right there what was considered orthodox and what was not.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
If the Church is the Household of God, how can God not need the Church? Did you not know that there were other Gospels other than the 4 Gospels we know going around. The Church guided by the Holy Spirit compiled a list of canon of Scripture in 382 Council of Rome, 392 Council of Hippo, and 396 AD Council of Carthage.
Discuss is more the proper term.
The Church override St. Jerome opinions so the 7 OT Books were kept until the Reformers remove them.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The Catholic Church is the Church I belong time. Roman is just Latin Rite. I hope you know that there is a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church in union with the Pope.
In St. Jerome’s time the Pope was Pope Damascus I oversea the Canon of Scripture.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If God did not “really need” a Church, why did He create a Church?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yet the fact remains that He did use it… and you made an inaccurate statement. If the 73 book canon was set by Catholic councils in the 4th century then it’s a moot point after that. Even Trent only affirmed what was already there.
If you say so…but they sure did in 393 and 397…and every list from the ECF prior to that agrees. BTW…they’re Deuterocanonical books…not apocryphal like the gnostic gospels. And you ignore Jerome’s comments about that. He and Augustine discussed that and like Augustine he bowed to those who knew better.
The first 34 centuries of Christianity bear no doctrinal comparison to the new gospel of the post reformation step-children so far as I can see.
J
joshua_b
Guest
Zooey, you are my favorite Methodist in the whole world. The only reason I read as much of this as I did was to see what you had to say. (Sorry Mod. for being off topic…back to our regularly scheduled debate).
C
Catholic29
Guest
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Yes, and Jerome proved the loyal Catholic and acquiesced to the Pope’s dictates. Now THAT’S Catholic!!!
K
kaycee
Guest
Sorry, i think your just plain wrong.
St. Jerome
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”
Cardinal Cajetan
The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following background on his importance and influence:
Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:
“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”
The deuterocanonicals were for edification and NOT considered God-Breathed scripture from Jerome to the Reformation.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Does St. Jerome have authority over the Church? No. The Canon of Scripture which include the Deutercanonical was settled by the Church Council in Rome (382 AD), Hippo (392 AD), and Carthage 396 AD. The same list was the same in the Council of Trent in 1545 A.D. St. Jerome translated the OT into Latin, as well as the Greek Manuscripts of the 27 Books of the NT into Latin known as the Latin Vulgate.
And you are wrong to quote Catholic bishops like St. Jerome.
G
guanophore
Guest
Why do you say this?
K
kaycee
Guest
That is not what happend in history.
Some have suggested that Jerome later changed his opinion and included the Apocrypha in the canon of the Vulgate. However, there is no evidence to support this. Jerome continued to write commentaries on the Old Testament books until his death. There is no record that he ever retracted his original statements about the Apocrypha. In his work, Against Rufinus, written in AD 401-402, he reiterated and defended his earlier position on the Apocrypha. **Again, his comments come after the North African councils. Though he did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical in the strict sense, Jerome quoted from them in accordance with his own convictions, for the purposes of edification. Again, this is the same distinction drawn (between canonical and ecclesiastical books) by Athanasius and Rufinus. **
Carthage and Trent have different books!
The enlarged canon of Augustine, which was, as it will be seen, wholly unsupported by any Greek authority, was adopted at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397?) AND contradicts the decree passed by Trent which followed Jerome in assigning I and II Esdras to the canonical Hebrew books of Ezra and Nehemiah respectively. **Therefore, Trent declared uncanonical what the Council of Carthage and the bishops of Rome, in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, declared to be canonical. **Clearly, then, Carthage did not authoritatively establish the canon for the Church universally. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the reason the canon was not definitively settled for the Church until the Council of Trent is that the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that **many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. **
christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
St. Jerome was speaking his opinion about the deuterocanonical books. He himself has no authority. The Church has authority. Just because he does not agree to the Church, the Church consider the books inspired and worth to be in the Bible.
For a Protestant who quote a Catholic Church Father like St. Jerome is strange. For me, it seem strange.
K
kaycee
Guest
He certainly did no such thing.
Jerome continued to write commentaries on the Old Testament books until his death. There is no record that he ever retracted his original statements about the Apocrypha. In his work, Against Rufinus, written in AD 401-402, he reiterated and defended his earlier position on the Apocrypha. Again, his comments come after the North African councils. Though he did not consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical in the strict sense, Jerome quoted from them in accordance with his own convictions, for the purposes of edification. Again, this is the same distinction drawn (between canonical and ecclesiastical books) by Athanasius and Rufinus.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The resource you gave christiantruth.com is Anti-Catholic resource. It’s reliably is deeply in question, and we Catholic don’t consider it credible. Like others like it, they like to take it out of context.
If you were to say they did not think it was canonical many of those same bishops **did not think the Book of Revelation **is canonical or inspired, yet it was approved by the Councils.
Second, since when did the canonical books was based on opinions? The Church Council made it clear those books are canonical. Some bishops or Cardinals may disagree but the Magisterium of the Church say it is.
- Status