I don't even understand Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

JonNC wrote:
Luther made Trent necessary.

Hi Jim,
How does Luther make Trent necessary? He was excommunicated, and dead.

I’ll get to your other questions, but I don’t follow the logic of accepting Luther’s opinion of the OT and rejecting his opinion of the NT.

 

[cooterhein]

The Epistles just resound with apostolic condemnation of those who would divide, those who would compete against the appointed episkopoi and presbyteroi.

I think you could also argue that they resound with a leadership structure that was less rigidly hierarchical and more collegial than the current Western setup centered in Rome. Say what you want about developing over time; go ahead and pull out the “ever ancient ever new” phraseology. Fact is, Catholic leadership isn’t all that similar to what the ancient church had. Yes, that does imply change over time, but if you’d rather call it development…

I have to be an apostolic Christian, and I am a Westerner through and through (don’t have an Eastern mind–too culturally different for me, sorry), so I must…be…Catholic.

I’ve heard that the Eastern mind sees the East as united while the West is divided…specifically, the Protestant Reformation would be an example of disunity within Catholicism that was never repaired, and every new denomination and sect is a testament to the enduring legacy of the Wests’ disunity.

In this example, “the West” would be exactly synonymous with the Catholic Church** if** it were a shining beacon of unity, but as it is, there’s many thousands of other groups to account for. All of which ultimately owe their existence to a lack of Catholic unity.

When the Eastern mind observes that all of this disunity happens in the West and nothing quite like it happens in the East, how does your Western mind respond to that? How does your Western mind compare a Western church amidst thousands of denominations that broke away from it to a Reformation-less East and conclude that the Western church is the better example of God-given unity and continual preservation as such?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Catholic (Saints) church while under persecution for the first 400 years was already establishing lists of inspired books to be used in her liturgy while underground.
Mileto Bishop of Sardis, C.175 ad, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185ad
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 325 ad

As soon as the persecutions of Christians and destroying Christian books by the Roman Emperor Diocletian died down, the Church began to settle the Canon once and for all.

By 367 ad. St. Athanasius of Alexandria published for the first time the definitive list including all 27 books that we know today. St. Athanasius is quoted by saying “let no one add to them or take anything away from them”, St. Athanasius Canon was accepted widely almost immediately.

St. Damasus I in 382 ad adopted the canon in the decretal of Gelasius.
This act prompted by the Council of Rome to write a decree listing the present OT/NT canon of 73 books.

Your listing of the Canon from Pope Damasus begins after the persecution of the Catholic (Christians) Church was lifted.

Jim Dandy;7448040]The canon of Scriptures was decided at the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), Pope Damasus I presiding. Following the Council, Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin (to replace the Old Latin version). The result was the Vulgate, which contains the canon set by the Roman council. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) confirmed the same canon. The decrees of these regional councils were confirmed by Popes Innocent I and Boniface.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello cooterhein;
There has never been a Catholic Church since the resurrection without the Chair of Peter and a Pope. There has always been Bishops who succeeded the apostles since the last apostle John. There continues to be valid priests and deacons in the Catholic church since biblical times. The Catholic Church has council-ed regarding faith and morals since the first Church council in Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts. This same “leadership” (hierarchy) is the same “leadership” (hierarchy) as apostolic successors who canonized the bible the world has today.

cooterhein;7449815]I think you could also argue that they resound with a leadership structure that was less rigidly hierarchical and more collegial than the current Western setup centered in Rome. Say what you want about developing over time; go ahead and pull out the “ever ancient ever new” phraseology. Fact is, Catholic leadership isn’t all that similar to what the ancient church had. Yes, that does imply change over time, but if you’d rather call it development…

What you have heard about the Eastern unity does not par with the unity found in Catholicism in the West. For every Bishop in the western “world” and East in communion with the Pope are united to one head. You do not find this biblical unity in the East united to Peter’s chair. In fact not hear-say, the East have isolated communities from one another that does not exist in the Western Catholic Church.

The protestant reformation does not equal the unity shared by both Eastern and Western Catholic Church. The Western Catholic church never divided herself, she is the same church since the protestant reformers left the Catholic church.

I strongly disagree with your disunity assessment “hear say” because it is a fact that both East and West maintain the same Catholic liturgy (differs culturally and language) same holy orders and sacraments. While protestants have severed themselves from the Apostles teachings and hierarchy.

I’ve heard that the Eastern mind sees the East as united while the West is divided…specifically, the Protestant Reformation would be an example of disunity within Catholicism that was never repaired, and every new denomination and sect is a testament to the enduring legacy of the Wests’ disunity.

In this example, “the West” would be exactly synonymous with the Catholic Church** if** it were a shining beacon of unity, but as it is, there’s many thousands of other groups to account for. All of which ultimately owe their existence to a lack of Catholic unity.

If you study the Eastern side of Catholicism you will find dictators, Islam, cultures, languages and “authority” divide the Eastern church’s tremendously. While in the Western Catholic church you don’t find such disunity in authority, cultures, languages or governments. We are united in one faith, one Lord, one baptism. Although our governments, languages and cultures are different in many ways in the west our Catholic faith has always maintained its unity ,never disunity as you wrongly heard.

That said; the Catholic church in the West is united and maintains in her creed as the one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith preserved on the blood of her Martyrs and Saints since apostolic times. The Catholic church is the only Christian church that history proves as coming from Jesus and the apostles.

Protestantism is the one body that continues to divide itself and remove itself further and further not only from the original reformers but from the apostolic biblical faith found in the 2000 year old Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

When the Eastern mind observes that all of this disunity happens in the West and nothing quite like it happens in the East, how does your Western mind respond to that? How does your Western mind compare a Western church amidst thousands of denominations that broke away from it to a Reformation-less East and conclude that the Western church is the better example of God-given unity and continual preservation as such?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

JonNC wrote:

If it were already canonized, 3 questions:

1. Why would Trent even bother with the issue, other than to say the canon was closed long ago?

Jim Dandy replies:

The Catholic Church never formally defines a doctrine until it becomes necessary. Luther’s rejection of certain Scriptures – not just by saying so, but by issuing his own Bible – necessitated the formal definition. (A dogma is a formally defined doctrine.)

1. Why would Catholic scholars such as Cajetan and Erasmus dare question the DC’s?

They did not issue their own Bible as Luther did. I would have to do some research to see whether they remained in good standing. When a doctrine becomes dogma, it’s "De Fide" – set in concrete.

1. Why do the Orthodox have different canons, as the Church was undivided at the times mentioned?

Sorry, you’ll have to ask the Orthodox. There are several different canons among both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. There is no “Orthodox Church” – there are autonomous national, ethnic Churches (plural) with no overarching authority.

Then it wasn’t set.

I’ll post the decree of the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), which was the basis for the Vulgate (405). The canon of Scriptures in the Vulgate was affirmed by Trent. The same Scriptures were also named at the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1445), Trent (1545-63), Vatican I, (1869-70). This canon was approved by Popes Innocent I (405) and Boniface (419).

Then why couldn’t Luther? To my knowledge, there was no dogmatic declaration regarding the placement or order of the books. He thought they were not the level of scripture. So did others. And Luther was not covered by Trent.

Luther stated clearly – in writing and by exclusion – in his own Bible, which he translated for wide distribution – that he did not regard Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as Scripture.

The fact is that different communions, even those of Orthodoxy, have had different canons of the OT.

Yes, there were (e.g. Marcion in the second century) and are many Bibles. gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm
Which one is the real Word of God?

All doctrinal issues, including which books belong in the Bible, lead to the ultimate question of AUTHORITY. The Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world on the Apostle Peter and his successors has HIS authority. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . . " Matthew 16:18-19. "He who hears you hears me . . . " Luke 10:16.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Jon; Trent as well as all the other historical councils before Trent, allowed to hear the arguments pro and con for the deuterbooks listed in the canon. Trent bothered with the issue because some of her own bishops were taking the side of Luther to remove the dc books from the canon.

Trent ruled that the DC books will maintain their canonical status, and closed anymore arguments against these DC books or excommunicate yourself should you deny these canonized books.

I don’t think you will find any Catholic scholars refuting the DC books after the council of Trent. Cajetan (d. 1534) and Erasmus (d.1526) like Luther (d.1546) existed before the anathema from the council of Trent (1563). During their time many others spoke pros and cons against the DC books before the Council of Trent ruled on the question of the DC books.

The Orthodox canons differ due to these additional books are used in their liturgies. The New testament and Old testament of 73 books are all recognized as canon. They have been using these books in their liturgies since anyone can remember and are universally accepted when used in their liturgy.

Outside of their liturgies it would be interesting to learn if they are universally recognized as canonical? Because these additional books from their canons have not gone through the scrutiny of the Church councils as did the bible we have today listing the 73 books in the official canonized list of bible books inspired of God.

Remember “canon” = is the measuring (rod) standard used to make the list as being from the original apostles and inspired by God. So the Orthodox as you state have “different canons” but recognize the universal accepted canon established by the early Church councils. How they approved their additional canon of books to be used in their liturgies would be interesting to learn about. Just as the west has its lectionary and Evangelium for her liturgy this is considered a canon, the Orthodox have their canon to be used in her liturgy. Yet both East and West recognize the same 73 canonized books for the Universal (Catholic) Church.

Just food for thought.

JonNC;7448134]If it were already canonized, 3 questions:

1. Why would Trent even bother with the issue, other than to say the canon was closed long ago?
2. Why would Catholic scholars such as Cajetan and Erasmus dare question the DC’s?
3. Why do the Orthodox have different canons, as the Church was undivided at the times mentioned?

.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

For JonNC and interested others,

COUNCIL OF ROME (A.D. 382) Pope Damasus I Presiding

Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament books begins here:

Genesis, one book
Exodus, one book
Leviticus, one book
Numbers, one book
Deuteronomy, one book
Joshua Nave, one book
Judges, one book
Ruth, one book
Kings, four books = 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings]
Paralipomenon, two books = 1 & 2 Chronicles]
Psalms, one book

Solomon, three books**:**
Proverbs, one book
Ecclesiastes, one book
Canticle of Canticles, one book

Likewise:

Wisdom, one book = Wisdom of Solomon]
Ecclesiasticus, one book = Sirach]

Likewise the order of the Prophets:

Isaiah, one book
Jeremiah, one book [includes Baruch]
with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations
Ezekiel, one book
Daniel, one book
Hosea, one book
Micah, one book
Joel, one book
Obadiah, one book
Jonah, one book
Nahum, one book
Habakkuk, one book
Zephaniah, one book
Haggai, one book
Zechariah, one book
Malachi, one book

LIkewise the order of the histories:

Job, one book
Tobias, one book = Tobit]
Esdras, two books = Ezra & Nehemiah]
Esther, one book
Judith, one book
Maccabees, two books

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports.
Of the gospels:

according to Matthew, one book
according to Mark, one book
according to Luke, one book
according to John, one book.

The Epistles of Paul, in number fourteen:

to the Romans, one
to the Corinthians, two
to the Ephesians, one
to the Thessalonians, two
to the Galatians, one
to the Philippians, one
to the Colossians, one
to Timothy, two
to Titus, one
to Philemon, one
to the Hebrews, one

Likewise:

the Apocalypse of John, one book.
and the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles, in number seven:

of Peter the Apostle, two epistles
of James the Apostle, one epistle
of John the Apostle, one epistle
of another John, the presbyter, two epistles
of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle.

The canon of the New Testament ends here.

[Source: Denzinger, *The Sources of Catholic Dogma, sect. 84.]

 

[cooterhein]

Hello cooterhein;
There has never been a Catholic Church since the resurrection without the Chair of Peter and a Pope. There has always been Bishops who succeeded the apostles since the last apostle John.

This is at best highly debatable and at worst a gross overstatement of what you can really conclude historically. Peter did not have a “last say” kind of authority. Nor did he function as the vicar of Christ. Nor were bishops organized in a rigidly hierarchical manner. Nor did Linus actually succeed Peter in the sense that Peter appointed Linus as his successor and Linus accepted such a position. Nor did any of the ECF’s claim the ability to produce anything infallible or enjoy protection from error- not until the 9th century, anyway. All of this is quite anachronistic.

There continues to be valid priests and deacons in the Catholic church since biblical times.

Priests? Really? Come now, I know when clericalism got started within Christianity. It certainly does not go back to “biblical times.”

This same “leadership” (hierarchy) is the same “leadership” (hierarchy) as apostolic successors who canonized the bible the world has today.

But it’s “the same” along with some major developments. And isn’t it true that the East has the same “leadership” (hierarchy) as first-millennium Christianity without all the developments since then?

What you have heard about the Eastern unity does not par with the unity found in Catholicism in the West.

I heard that they avoided having any Reformations. Is that true? I also heard that their authority is less centralized, but that doesn’t have direct bearing on unity. Seems like the presence vs. the absence of division is more directly related to that, correct?

In fact not hear-say, the East have isolated communities from one another that does not exist in the Western Catholic Church.

Find me an EO source that describes them as “isolated communities.” I think that’s a bit too pejorative on your part.

The protestant reformation does not equal the unity shared by both Eastern and Western Catholic Church. The Western Catholic church never divided herself, she is the same church since the protestant reformers left the Catholic church.

You’re forgetting something. Well, you’re not really forgetting it, you’re just ignoring it. Here’s the thing.

Before the Protestant reformers left the Catholic Church, they were Catholics. Well duh, right? But when a large number of Catholics participate in a mass exodus from the Catholic Church and separate themselves from it, that is an example of disunity. If that’s not an example of the Western Catholic church being divided, what is?

Let’s think through this for a second. If that’s not an example of the CC becoming divided, what would have had to happen? Let’s say the Protestant reformers hadn’t left the CC. They don’t get excommunicated and they remain in submission to the Pope. Well, there’s no Reformation then, is there? But since they did leave and they did cease to be a part of the CC, that is an example of disunity in the CC and completely severed relations between Catholics and former Catholics.

This happened over and over and over again, and those ex-Catholic Christians didn’t ever re-unite or go away. The disunity is still there. If all these non-Catholics were united to the CC, they would be Catholics. But they’re not, so there’s your disunity. The very fact that you can have this conversation with me and so many people like me means you’re interacting with all of this disunity, saying it’s a bad thing, politely asking people like me to reunite with the CC every once in awhile…but all the time, you consistently deny that there is any disunity that has anything to do with the CC. It’s like you’re trying to undo this disunity without acknowledging that it is disunity in the first place. It’s ridiculous.

It’s right in front of you. I am a perfect example of this disunity. I’m from the West. I’m a non-Catholic Christian. You can find people like me very, very easily. Tell me, how easy is it for an Orthodox Christian to find Christians who broke from Orthodoxy and talk to them? Doesn’t happen too often, right? It’s not like there’s a half-billion of them. Well, unless you count the entire Catholic Church. Then they’d just have to come to this forum.

If you study the Eastern side of Catholicism you will find dictators, Islam, cultures, languages and “authority” divide the Eastern church’s tremendously.

How many Reformations will I find? How many ex-Orthodox groups will I find that have millions of members and can be found on every major continent? What percentage of Eastern Christianity is ex-Orthodox and non-apostolic? Pretty low, right? Single digits? That compares to about 30% of Christianity in the West that is non-Catholic. And every one of those non-Catholic churches ultimately owes its existence to the Catholics that originally stopped being Catholics and separated themselves from Rome. That’s an example of extensive, pervasive, and permanent division.

our Catholic faith has always maintained its unity ,never disunity as you wrongly heard.

You realize who you’re talking to, right? I am a Western Christian, and I am not a Catholic. If I were a Catholic, that would be unity by Catholic definition of unity. But I am not. That means you’re looking at some disunity right now. I am the disunity. You can’t pull this over on me.

Are you actually saying there’s no disunity in the West that the Catholic Church needs to take care of? Are you really telling me there’s no Christians in the West that need to become united to the Catholic Church?

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;7450433
If it were already canonized, 3 questions:

1. Why would Trent even bother with the issue, other than to say the canon was closed long ago?

Jim Dandy replies:

The Catholic Church never formally defines a doctrine until it becomes necessary. Luther’s rejection of certain Scriptures – not just by saying so, but by issuing his own Bible – necessitated the formal definition. (A dogma is a formally defined doctrine.)

So, it was ok for a 1,000 years prior to Luther for the east to have various other OT canons without a council, but an excommunicated friar who questons the canonicity of the DC’s, but nevertheless translates a 74 book Bible into German, after he was excommunicated, necessitates a council after he is dead? Jim, the whole of the Church has never agreed on an exact OT canon.

1. Why would Catholic scholars such as Cajetan and Erasmus dare question the DC’s?

They did not issue their own Bible as Luther did. I would have to do some research to see whether they remained in good standing. When a doctrine becomes dogma, it’s "De Fide" – set in concrete.

Precisely my point! It wasn’t set in concrete - until Trent (for Catholics). Luther was dead by Trent. It is also important to point out that Luther was not excommunicated for his views on the canon of scripture.

1. Why do the Orthodox have different canons, as the Church was undivided at the times mentioned?

Sorry, you’ll have to ask the Orthodox. There are several different canons among both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. There is no “Orthodox Church” – there are autonomous national, ethnic Churches (plural) with no overarching authority.

My understanding is the OT canon varied even before 1054, and it wasn’t an issue.

I’ll post the decree of the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), which was the basis for the Vulgate (405). The canon of Scriptures in the Vulgate was affirmed by Trent. The same Scriptures were also named at the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1445), Trent (1545-63), Vatican I, (1869-70). This canon was approved by Popes Innocent I (405) and Boniface (419).

But not by the entire Church.

Then why couldn’t Luther? To my knowledge, there was no dogmatic declaration regarding the placement or order of the books. He thought they were not the level of scripture. So did others. And Luther was not covered by Trent.

Luther stated clearly – in writing and by exclusion – in his own Bible, which he translated for wide distribution – that he did not regard Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as Scripture.

So did Jerome.

The fact is that different communions, even those of Orthodoxy, have had different canons of the OT.

Yes, there were (e.g. Marcion in the second century) and are many Bibles. gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm
Which one is the real Word of God?

All doctrinal issues, including which books belong in the Bible, lead to the ultimate question of AUTHORITY. The Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world on the Apostle Peter and his successors has HIS authority. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . . " Matthew 16:18-19. "He who hears you hears me . . . " Luke 10:16.

His Church, Jim, is not found exclusively in Rome.

Peace,

And also with you,
Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi Jim,
How does Luther make Trent necessary? He was excommunicated, and dead.

Trent was the Catholic response to the Deformation, led by Luther.

Luther wounded the Body of Christ by splitting it and forming his own ecclesial body in opposition to the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. He invented doctrines which still divide Christendom today. Then Calvin and said Luther got it wrong – THIS is what scripture means. Then Zwingli said Luther and Calvin got it wrong – THIS is what scripture means. And then John Knox said . . . and so on and so on and so on . . . Hundreds, now thousands, have split from the splits, etc., ad nauseum, and formed their own ecclesial communities, all based their own interpretation of Scripture, in accordance with Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the concomitant doctrine that every sincere person is guided by the Spirit to “all truth” when reading it…

The Lutheran confessions make no statement as to the OT or NT canon of scripture. Luther’s views were his own, and there are lots of things Luther expressed that Lutheranism either rejects outright, or views as his opinion.

I suppose that accounts for the more than 250 separate Lutheran groups, each of them accepting or rejecting what they – in their own private interpretation – think is true?

Aren’t all Lutherans obliged to believe the Book of Concord? And the allegations that the Pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon?

No more nor less than Eusebius.

Do you mean Bishop Eusebius of Caesaria who wrote the only surviving History of the Church in early in the fourth century? That Eusebius died in A.D. 339, well before the canon was defined.

I believe you overstate Luther’s questioning of the antilegomena.

I don’t think so.

quote –

I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (“Preface to James,” 1522 edition, Works of Martin Luther, Volume VI, p. 477-9) .

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.
(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

End quote

Throughout his life he preached and taught from all of them.

I simply take Luther’s own words at face value.

But rather than go through each…
tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a5

I’ll comment on the link separately.

Peace, Jim

 

[Jim_Dandy]

JonNC and interested others,

I’ve read James Swan’s article on Luther and the Bible. He reports that Luther separated the so-called Apocrypha in an appendix of his German translation of the Bible, leaving the pages unnumbered so it would be clear that they were not Scripture, under the following label: **“These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” **

And he quotes the authors of Luther’s Works:
“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.”

That’s more detail than I wrote, but basically the same – except that it emphasizes more dramatically that Luther’s New Testament canon was shorter than the one most Christians accept – only 23 books. .

I’ve asked for an explanation of why Luther’s cuts to the OT canon are embraced, but his cuts to the NT canon are not. Inconsistent, don’t you think? Was Luther only half right?

Swan’s article is a whitewash of Luther. I’ve read many such whitewashes and reviews of films which portray “the Great Reformer” as a hero.

Jim Dandy

 

[KathleenGee]

Here is St. Peter, the rock on whom Christ built His church, 2 Peter 2: 20-21. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of Scipture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit under the will of God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Maybe you haven’t heard? but bishops, priests and deacons are in the new testament, just as they have existed since biblical times in the Catholic Church;

Paul describes the “faithful people” who are to hand on God’s Revelation and carry on principal Church functions.

The first category of “faithful people”** is episcopoi, bishops**.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, … holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

The second category of "faithful people" is presbyteroi, the presbyters, priests, elders.
Tit 1:5-6
Appoint presbyters (presbyterois) in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
1 Tim 5:17
**Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching. **

The third category of “faithful people” is diaconoi, deacons.
1 Tim 4:6,13,16
If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister (diakonos) of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. … Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Attend to yourself and to your teaching.
1 Tim 3:8-9
Similarly, deacons (diaconos) must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

cooterhein;7450531]This is at best highly debatable and at worst a gross overstatement of what you can really conclude historically. Peter did not have a “last say” kind of authority. Nor did he function as the vicar of Christ. Nor were bishops organized in a rigidly hierarchical manner. Nor did Linus actually succeed Peter in the sense that Peter appointed Linus as his successor and Linus accepted such a position. Nor did any of the ECF’s claim the ability to produce anything infallible or enjoy protection from error- not until the 9th century, anyway. All of this is quite anachronistic.

Priests? Really? Come now, I know when clericalism got started within Christianity. It certainly does not go back to “biblical times.”

We are at a crossroads of definitions here; There is no “disunity” in the western Catholic Church. You are claiming disunity in the Catholic Church because “catholic” protestant reformers left her, and many followed them? That does not equate disunity in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church remained united to its head. I find no disunity in the Catholic Church, this can never happen because she is the body of Christ and the body of Christ is never divided as you claim. The arguments you “heard” about disunity in the West, probably came from an Orthodox, who makes the argument that they want no part of protestantism because the reformation heresy came from the Western Catholic Church, the latter is the Orthodox position of disunity in the West. Not disunity within the Catholic Church.

Another definition that appears vague is your assertions of “developement”. Are you protesting and arguing, that when the Catholic Church protected and preserved the apostolic faith in the Trinity 300+ years after the death of the last apostle, and defined this apostolic “oral” Tradition and biblical supported faith which declared it a doctrine called the “Trinity”, that you protest this “development”?

What is your case against such preservations of the apostolic faith? when the Catholic Saints and Martyrs went to their deaths for the apostolic biblica faith defending it and preserving it, thus defining the apostolic faith as doctrine, thereby seperating the sheep from the goats.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

JonNC wrote:

So, it was ok for a 1,000 years prior to Luther for the east to have various other OT canons without a council, but an excommunicated friar who questons the canonicity of the DC’s, but nevertheless translates a 74 book Bible into German, after he was excommunicated, necessitates a council after he is dead? Jim, the whole of the Church has never agreed on an exact OT canon.

Is the Bible is the “inspired,“ God-breathed Word of God? If it is, He must reveal to us the writings that contain His Word. There were hundreds of writings to be considered. He trusted His Church to write what became the New Testament and form the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He revealed to the Church which writings were inspired.

Luther didn’t just question the canonicity-- the inspiration – of the Scriptures. He – by his own authority – declared that Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were not Scripture, even though they had been SCRIPTURE to Christians since the NT was selected and the Bible was first canonized at the close of the fourth century…

Precisely my point! It wasn’t set in concrete - until Trent (for Catholics). Luther was dead by Trent. It is also important to point out that Luther was not excommunicated for his views on the canon of scripture.

(A) The contents of the Bible had been canonized but not dogmatized. I presume you read the decree I posted. Examine the table of contents of a Catholic Bible today, and it’s the same as the Council of Rome (and the subsequent Councils). No change. (B) Luther’s excommunication occurred on 3 January 1521, before he translated his German Bible.

But not by the entire Church.

See the refernce to the Council of Carthage in a separate post.

Then why couldn’t Luther? To my knowledge, there was no dogmatic declaration regarding the placement or order of the books. He thought they were not the level of scripture. So did others. And Luther was not covered by Trent.

Reordering the books of the Bible was not what Luther did. He removed writings from the OT and NT canon.

So did Jerome.

St. Jerome’s only Bible was the Vulgate which contains the canon of the Council of Rome. St. Jerome’s opinion was only that – opinion. He obeyed the Church. Luther’s opinion had devastating consequences, depriving Protestantism of the complete Bible.

His Church, Jim, is not found exclusively in Rome.

You’re right, Jon. “Catholic” means universal. His Church is all over the world, united in one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, under the leadership and spiritual care of the successor of St. Peter, Bishop of Rome. That’s where the Authority lies.

“You are Kepha (Rock) and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” Mt 16:18-19 RSV.

Luther appointed himself as the head of his own church.

Peace be with you, Jay

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Because of the length of my answers, I separated this question:

**JonNC wrote **

My understanding is the OT canon varied even before 1054, and it wasn’t an issue

.

The Orthodox canon SHOULD be limited to the 419 Council of Carthage:

"There is nothing in the canons (that is, official pronouncements) of Nicaea II that specifically affirms the canon of Carthage. Nicaea II’s objective was to condemn the Iconoclast heresy and to put down the errors associated with it. The Council’s acceptance of the Carthaginian canon was done as a “side-bar” issue, and we only know about it because Byzantine clerics speak about it in their correspondences as an issue that was settled at the Council. The closest statement made to this effect by the Council itself in its Acts is this proclamation from its first canon:

"Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, (Like the councils in Trullo) or by our holy Fathers (like the councils of Carthage). For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. (In canon I of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of II Nicaea II).

Included in these “locally assembled councils” being referred to here is the 419 Council of Carthage, which re-affirmed the 397 Biblical canon and then issued an anathema against anyone who denied it. This anathema was not included in the original 397 proclamation of Carthage; but by 419, the Carthaginian canon of Scripture had been ratified by Rome (i.e., Pope Innocent ratified and published in before 405) and had been re-affirmed in 419 by Pope Boniface. This is included in the anathemas referred to by Nicaea II above, although Carthage itself (A.D. 419) is not specifically mentioned in the official canons of Nicaea II. But, again, we know from the correspondence of the time that this is part of what the Council had in mind. And we Catholics are not the only ones who confess this. Educated Eastern Orthodox recognize it too.

Now, … At the time, the Byzantines also considered the 692 Council of Trullo (a.k.a. the Quinisext Council) to be Ecumenical and binding on the Eastern Church/Empire, even though Rome refused to ratify it as a matter of universal authority. Yet, while Trullo was still subject to debate at this time, it clearly fell under the criteria of a council that was “locally assembled for promulgating the degrees of [the] Ecumenical councils.” This cannot be denied. And, at the 692 Byzantine council of Trullo, the African Code of the 419 Council of Carthage (that is, the assembled canons of the Carthagian councils) was embraced by the Byzantine church. As the Catholic encyclopedia (newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm) explains it:

“It is uncertain when the canons of this Carthaginian synod were done into Greek. This only is certain, that they had been translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which, in its Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and were confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the rest.”

Ergo, at the regional council of Trullo (692), the African Code, which, included the Biblical canon of Carthage (that is, Canon 24 of the 419 Council of Carthage, which reaffirmed the 397 Biblical canon) became formal and binding for the Eastern Church. This cannot be denied.

The reason we say that the canon of Carthage was given Ecumenical authority at Nicaea II is because Nicaea II (from the Byzantine perspective and by Byzantine standards) gave ecumenical authority to the decree of Trullo which made the Carthaginian Biblical canon the norm for the Eastern Church. In other words, while we Romans do not accept the council of Trullo to be Ecumenical or binding, the Byzantines (that is, Eastern Orthodox) do. Thus, they are bound by what they profess; and Nicaea II makes them share that profession with us Romans in an ecumenical context. This is the contemporary understanding expressed by in the private correspondences of the fathers who participated in Nicaea II viz. the Biblical canon.

Source: davidmacd.com/catholic/or…f_Carthage.htm

Jim Dandy

 

[simspt]

Many protestants argue against Catholicism based on the fact that some of our beliefs don’t come directly from the Bible. But it was Catholics who made the Bible in the first place. If you can’t trust the source of the Bible, how can you trust the Bible? Further, some books are removed from the Bible in Prostestant canon; what gave them the authority to say which books belonged?

One might argue that the NT or at minimum Pauls undisputed writings and the Gospels are from a spaciotemporal perspesctive the best references we have for faithful apostolic testimony of Christ. Early church tradition seems to have influenced these writings and numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors influenced their canonizatiion centuries later. Therefore this type of tradition is not rejected by Protestants to my understanding except by some fundamentalist Christians that have very anachronistic beliefs about the NT canon influenced by their erroneous view of inspiration and the role they believe it played in the early Church’s decisions on the NT writings.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;7452542]Trent was the Catholic response to the Deformation, led by Luther

Deformation? Come on, Jim. We’ve had a spirited but respectful discussion.

Luther wounded the Body of Christ by splitting it and forming his own ecclesial body in opposition to the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Seems to me he had help from the Vatican.

He invented doctrines which still divide Christendom today. Then Calvin and said Luther got it wrong – THIS is what scripture means. Then Zwingli said Luther and Calvin got it wrong – THIS is what scripture means.

Actually, Zwingli came before Calvin. and neither of them split from Luther, but from Rome.

And then John Knox said . . . and so on and so on and so on . . . Hundreds, now thousands, have split from the splits, etc., ad nauseum, and formed their own ecclesial communities, all based their own interpretation of Scripture, in accordance with Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the concomitant doctrine that every sincere person is guided by the Spirit to “all truth” when reading it…

Sola scriptura and personal interpretation are two different things. in fact, properly practiced, sola scriptura protects against private interpretation because it holds all teachers and teachings accountable to scripture.

I suppose that accounts for the more than 250 separate Lutheran groups, each of them accepting or rejecting what they – in their own private interpretation – think is true?

The polity of Lutheranism aside, confessional Lutherans do accept and hold to the confessions. Those who don’t one could call “cafeteria Lutherans”, not unlike Cafeteria Catholics.

Aren’t all Lutherans obliged to believe the Book of Concord? And the allegations that the Pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon?

I’m not aware that “whore of Babylon” is in the confessions.
That said, papacy as antichrist is pretty harsh. It is also harsh when the Catholic Church claims there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
So, here’s my position. These condemnations of the papacy were 500 years ago, and they are clearly dated, directed at the papacy at the time. Just as the Catholic Church has, in its catechism, developed its view of noncatholic Christians, so it seems obvious that this current pope, and the wonderful John Paul II, and their recent predecessors are not antichrist, but great leaders of the Christian faith. And to take this position does not violate the Confessions.

Do you mean Bishop Eusebius of Caesaria who wrote the only surviving History of the Church in early in the fourth century? That Eusebius died in A.D. 339, well before the canon was defined.

Luther wrote his before Trent, also.

I]I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (“Preface to James,” 1522 edition, Works of Martin Luther, Volume VI, p. 477-9) .

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.
(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”
Luther is speaking of the views of others here.

and

*“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, **I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. *However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

Jim, in how many additions did his initial preface of 1522 appear? To my knowledge, it was only in 1522. His later use of the Epistle of James, and his stated acceptance of it as canon indicates that, no matter how hostile you think he may have been, clearly he changed his view as time went on.

Peace, Jim

Jon

 

[GreggAlvarez]

This is at best highly debatable and at worst a gross overstatement of what you can really conclude historically. Peter did not have a “last say” kind of authority. Nor did he function as the vicar of Christ. Nor were bishops organized in a rigidly hierarchical manner. Nor did Linus actually succeed Peter in the sense that Peter appointed Linus as his successor and Linus accepted such a position. Nor did any of the ECF’s claim the ability to produce anything infallible or enjoy protection from error- not until the 9th century, anyway. All of this is quite anachronistic.

This is at best highly debatable and at worst a gross understatement of what YOU can really conclude historically. All of this is quite anachronistic. VERY

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Priests? Really? Come now, I know when clericalism got started within Christianity. It certainly does not go back to “biblical times.”

Negating with nothing to give? You have to posit something.

Who were the “presbyters” or “elders” (Greek Presbuteros) in the Epistle of James (5:14 I believe)? If they were priests, then you are wrong. If not, then what were they?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You’re forgetting something. Well, you’re not really forgetting it, you’re just ignoring it. Here’s the thing.

Before the Protestant reformers left the Catholic Church, they were Catholics. Well duh, right? But when a large number of Catholics participate in a mass exodus from the Catholic Church and separate themselves from it, that is an example of disunity. If that’s not an example of the Western Catholic church being divided, what is?

Let’s think through this for a second. If that’s not an example of the CC becoming divided, what would have had to happen? Let’s say the Protestant reformers hadn’t left the CC. They don’t get excommunicated and they remain in submission to the Pope. Well, there’s no Reformation then, is there? But since they did leave and they did cease to be a part of the CC, that is an example of disunity in the CC and completely severed relations between Catholics and former Catholics.

Here are the things you are ignoring: Reason, logic, a little bit of thinking and the fact that you cannot read minds.

The Catholic Church NEVER divided herself. This is the awesome thing about reason and logic in the form of objectivity: There can be no assumptions in the attainment of Truth. The Church did not create the disunity; She was not even a cause. People within Her took it upon themselves to create their own doctrines and left the Church and some people went along with it. The Reformers did it for various reasons. It is called The Reformation for a reason and NOT “Disunion of the Catholic Church.” PEOPLE caused the Reformation, NOT an institution, a divine one at that.

This is what you are assuming. You are assuming that since a whole bunch of people left, that means that the Church split and became Churches. You are assuming that a few constitutes the whole. A logical following of your false assumption would be that since everybody in the Church sins, the CHURCH is a sinner.

Here is where you ARE right though: Nowhere.

A disunity in the Church would be (God forbid) that the Magisterium went away from the Pope or vice-versa. The Body of Christ cannot be in “disunity”; otherwise, Christ’s Body would be in disunity and that is not even possible.

God bless