Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[greggy53]

Do either of these authors state, as you did earlier that “This cannon(the Catholic cannon) went uncontested for 1600 years until Martin Luther decided to take 7 books out…”?

Luther didn’t take them out. He decided on his own that they weren’t scripture, but he didn’t rmove them.

 

[greggy53]

What have I stated that is in error? I don’t recall “re-writing history”.

When you imply that the 7 books were not legitimate for 1600 prior to The Luther heresy. Whether or not some contested them at various councils is irrelevant. The 7 were always upheld as scripture from the beginning. If you don’t think they are that’s fine but don’t try to justify your beliefs based on false implications.

 

[Hisalone]

When you imply that the 7 books were not legitimate for 1600 prior to The Luther heresy. Whether or not some contested them at various councils is irrelevant. The 7 were always upheld as scripture from the beginning. If you don’t think they are that’s fine but don’t try to justify your beliefs based on false implications.

It is undenialbly obvious that Catholics have tried to re write history with regards to the cannon.
In my public library there is the multi volume Catholic encyclopedia
under cannon there is this:

"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). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."

you owe SemperReformada an apology.

 

[Contarini]

It is undenialbly obvious that Catholics have tried to re write history with regards to the cannon.
In my public library there is the multi volume Catholic encyclopedia
under cannon there is this:

**“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). **Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

Making an “infallible” decision about something concerning which there has previously been some doubt is not “rewriting history.”

Edwin

 

[Hisalone]

Making an “infallible” decision about something concerning which there has previously been some doubt is not “rewriting history.”

Edwin

Not some doubt, MUCH discussion, MUCH question.
Proof that the cannon was not finalized until Trent.

So the question remains Wy did you add 7 books to the cannon?

 

[Contarini]

Not some doubt, MUCH discussion, MUCH question.
Proof that the cannon was not finalized until Trent.

So the question remains Wy did you add 7 books to the cannon?

First of all, I’m Anglican. We have traditionally regarded the deuterocanonical books as having a lesser status, precisely because we take those doubts seriously.

But you exaggerate the degree of doubt. In practice the books were mostly treated as canonical, particularly in the Western Church.

Therefore, you are grotesquely misrepresenting the situation when you speak of Trent “adding” books to the canon. The books were there: the questions about their status were once and for all answered (from the standpoint of those who accept Trent as infallible, which of course I as an Anglican do not).

Edwin

 

[AwGusTeen]

No, actually not true, what so ever.

There is a document, I forget the author, that was written in 90 ad. When your “Christians” were there. The document explained all that went on in ancient masses, it exactly corresponds with the mass today, including the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Explain how that got there, almost 2000 years ago, cause I know I don’t have a time machine (dang that would be useful )

I believe that is called the “didache”.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

We view those Christians that lived in the first hundred years to be Christian, Catholics as Catholics. Lets be honest ---- the Church of 33AD was different than the Church of 353 AD and much different than 1563.

Lets be honest the modern protestent churchs are different than the Church at 33 AD was.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

No Gabe there you go again spreading misinformation
This bogus arguement has been disproved on many levels. The earlier councils were regional not universal. There were many Catholic thinkers and theologians who went without them this was finalized after the Reformation which makes it that the Catholics added the books —get your history right.

Get your history right, there was a minority of Catholic thinkers who questioned the books.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Not some doubt, MUCH discussion, MUCH question.

MUCH question? I don’t think so. Give us some sources.

 

[DOShea]

Contesting something doesn’t make it unofficial. Theological debates are not the same thing as indecision until they are resolved.

You say there was debate about the canon not settled until Trent? You say that there were those out there who disagreed, or who held councils as regional only? So what?
Why don’t you cite for us an example of a Bible in, say, the 7th - 9th century that did NOT contain the canon as described in the Council of Hippo? If these dissenters were not accepting it, then tell us, what exactly were they using in their pulpits to preach God’s word from?

Then explain how “THE” Word, as modified by Luther, led to so many different interpretations? The religion of Luther is not the same as the religion of Calvin - how can that be if they are using the same book? What, was each of their reforms merely “regional,” thus open to different geographical interpretation?

How do you get from an early church confessing sins, doing acts of penance, following the commands of Jesus himself to eat his flesh and blood (or you will have NO life in you) into several different splinter religions today that all practice none of those things, while still claiming to be “original”?

Show me a church anywhere prior to the second millennium practicing the same was as ANY Protestant church of today. Can you?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2423

 

[SemperReformada]

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2423

If this is addressed to me please note that I never said a majority at Trent rejected the deutero’s. I simply posted evidence contrary to the claim that there was no opposition to including the deutero’s in the canon of the OT until the reformation.

 

[Hisalone]

If this is addressed to me please note that I never said a majority at Trent rejected the deutero’s. I simply posted evidence contrary to the claim that there was no opposition to including the deutero’s in the canon of the OT until the reformation.

The fact that there had been opposition prior to and none after kinda proves my point that it was at Trent that The Catholic Cannon was finalized.

 

[CWBetts]

Gabe you have all the sound bytes down but very little truth. Catholics added 7 books. The cannon was not closed until after the Reformation

Actually it was closed for all, practical purposes in the 4th century, formally closed at the council of Florence in 1441. And just so you know, the reformation is still going on! Every time you turn around a new denomination springs up. It is the counter-reformation that is over.

 

[Hisalone]

Actually it was closed for all, practical purposes in the 4th century, formally closed at the council of Florence in 1441. And just so you know, the reformation is still going on! Every time you turn around a new denomination springs up. It is the counter-reformation that is over.

You have ignored every point that has been made contrary to this.
If you so chose to live in fantasy that is your decision but dont teach others.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

"The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[Sword_Brethren]

There were many Catholic thinkers and theologians who went without them…

"The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

---

 

[Sword_Brethren]

QUOTE=Hisalone;5811660]Not some doubt, MUCH discussion, MUCH question.
Proof that the cannon was not finalized until Trent.

So the question remains Wy did you add 7 books to the cannon?Sounds like they were part of the canon but that you took 7 books out of the canno.

"The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Not some doubt, MUCH discussion, MUCH question.
Proof that the cannon was not finalized until Trent.

So the question remains Wy did you add 7 books to the cannon?

Sounds like they were part of the canon but that you took 7 books out of the canon.

"The canon of the Old Testament in the Church of the first three centuries

The sub-Apostolic writings of Clement, Polycarp, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, of the pseudo-Clementine homilies, and the “Shepherd” of Hermas, contain implicit quotations from or allusions to all the deuterocanonicals except Baruch (which anciently was often united with Jeremias) and I Machabees and the additions to David. No unfavourable argument can be drawn from the loose, implicit character of these citations, since these Apostolic Fathers quote the protocanonical Scriptures in precisely the same manner."

"The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. 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.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

---