You should look into what sense the word “canonical” can mean…
Jerome takes their word “canonical” in one sense while Augustine, Innocent and the fathers of Carthage as another. Jerome calls only those books canonical, which the church always held for canonical, the rest of the apocrypha he banishes from the canon. Augustine classifies the books, and uses varies ideologies within the word “canon.” He prefers some to others, makes distribution of them in this sense and classifies them. **If he thought they were all equal, as with the Scriptures, he would never have done this. **
[
apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphama(name removed by moderator)age/apocryphaarticle1/](
http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphama(name removed by moderator)age/apocryphaarticle1/)
You reference me to a Puritan website after I literally just read Augustine’s words for myself? How much of Augustine have you actually read? Or do you do what most Protestants do, and read their words as proof-text quoted in Protestant books/texts in order to ‘prove’ that the Reformation was not actually just a giant rebellion against the authority Christ established?
The passage I literally just posted has Augustine
approving of the use of the Catholic books for use in readings during the Liturgy. He ‘classifies’ them by type, and says that if they are authoritative. Did you actually read what he said???
Denying this is akin to saying that Ignatius wasn’t really referring to the Eucharist as the body of Christ (even though that’s exactly what he said), or that when Justin Martyr said the bread literally ‘transmutes’ to the flesh of Christ, it was a misunderstanding, or that Irenaeus saying that Scripture has no valid interpretation without the authority of the Church, and that the Church teaching is one, didn’t mean that the Church is actually one today.
I am done arguing with you. We have posted large amounts of Scripture, we have posted Church fathers, we have referenced councils and history. You have referenced personal interpretation of Scripture and Jerome’s disputes (though you failed to mention that he submitted to the Church). Do you also agree with Jerome about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Or the Eucharist? Or submission to the bishops? If not, then on what grounds? Do you agree with his decision to accept the Canon as the bishops wanted it? Do you hold to his position that the Church is one, and that those who refuse submission are heretics? If not, then why?
This is from Jerome, by the way. He was having issues with the Arians and whether there were three hypostases in God or one hyspostasis. In his letter to Pope Damasus, he asks him for clarification and permission to rebut the Arians. It sounds like he had quite some obedience to the Pope, does it not?:
“If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all.”
But you, oh wise Protestant, are truly enlightened, above the point of unity and obedience. You owe obedience to no one. Your interpretation of Scripture is above the Fathers. It is above the Apostles! The words of Ignatius and Clement to obey the bishops are void. The claim of Irenaeus that the Churches are one, and that they shall decide upon difficult matters and come to one conclusion, are null. There is no authority to prove you wrong (just as the Gnostics claimed, the very first heretics, and they used Scripture as their only authority).
If you hold to no authority, then, indeed, your interpretation cannot be wrong. And the flip side is, neither can ours, or the many different interpretations in existence. So why is there even a debate?
