T
TonyB2
Guest
It’s certainly not a quote ! - St John XXIII was much more polite. I was merely being jovial.
Is Protestantism a good thing? (Or “Why I Kissed Ecumenism Goodbye”)
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
Jerome included all the books we have now in his Vulgate translation. While he might have his own questions, at the time, he ultimately followed the Church.
However
He demoted scripture to apocryphal status. I.E. he demoted scripture to non scripture status.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Jerome and Cajetan removed NOTHING nor added anything to the canon of scripture, determined by the Churchsteve-b:
Yeah, per the original view of the Church as Jerome stated. WHAT??? That would mean that the re-classification to something other than deuterocanonical works was the actual innovation! Which was also by the way what Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Jimenez believed…so the designation that this is a heretical view didn’t come till after Luther died during the Council of Trent. Its kinda hard to take you seriously when you disregard other apocryphal works in the Septuagint as non-canonical and proclaim the position that these works are deuterocanonical as heretical in an ex post factor manner, but don’t apply that evenly across the board.You’re a Protestant. You have 66 books in your bibles. How does THAT happen?Oh yeah, the heretic Luther reclassified 7 scriptural books and demoted them to apocrypha status.
What part of
ALL written by human beings, is not understood?
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Smearing someone is NOT being jovial.
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
100% written by men, inspired by God, I get it.
H
Hodos
Guest
Right. Neither did Luther. That is the entire point.
The part where you ascribed to man God’s work.
Last edited:
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
Would it be fair to say the bulk of the existant division between the Catholic and the Lutheran Churches lies in Papal authority and infallibility? It seems most other theological issues, they’re not far off from each other.
H
Hodos
Guest
I would say that this is probably the central issue. The claim of infallible authority is what drives the other doctrinal issues in my opinion, or at least prevents them from being resolved.
Last edited:
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
Fair enough. Most dialogue I see revolves around secondary or even tertiary disagreements whereas if the central issue of authority is hashed out, the rest would naturally resolve.
S
steve-b
Guest
we can see the first, we can’t see the second, but we by faith know it’s there.
S
steve-b
Guest
Wrongsteve-b:
Right. Neither did Luther. That is the entire point.
Luther reclassified 7 OT canonical books to apocryphal status
apocrypha ≠ scripture
Don’t take my word for it.
"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther
THAT is from the father of Protestantism.
AND
To this day, THAT is the way it is in Protestant bibles.
How do YOU know what God inspired And what is NOT inspired? Especially, given what was just said about 7 scriptural books demoted to apocrypha status by the heretic Luther, the father of Protestantism.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
I think I would agree for the most part. The issue is that since the introduction of the doctrine of papal infallibility, there is no longer any means of self-correction once a doctrinal error is introduced into the stream of doctrine and practice. I think you see this in a host of areas to include in the sex abuse scandals due to the way the office of priest/bishop is viewed with regard to Holy Orders.
H
Hodos
Guest
I reject the use of the word DEMOTED in the first place since the innovation which is clearly evident from history is that they were promoted in status following the Council of Trent.
And to answer your question with a question, how did a Jew in the first century BCE know what was inspired or not without an infallible declaration from the Roman pontiff?
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
There are serious question, from both sides, about authority and ministry as seen by the others. It is not just Lutheran objections to papal authority, but also Catholic objections to Lutheran understandings of ordination. It is about episcopal authority primarily, papal authority within that.
I think the opposite has actually happened. Catholics actually have a way to correct doctrinal errors because of papal infallibility, while most others have no way to authoritatively change any errors.
G
gohjedrek
Guest
Anglicans have a similar position against papal infallibility. The idea is that if you disagree with one or more of the doctrines of the catholic church, then it will pose great difficulty with the catholic church. Most anglicans see doctrines of mary as adiaphora, some care about it. Some anglicans believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, some don’t. I am not too sure if the lutheran church has as much latitude, but some anglican churches that broke away from the communion into a traditional communion, have sought to reunite with rome and managed to establish a personal ordinariate.
S
steve-b
Guest
The canon of scripture was decreed in 382 at the council of Rome by Pope Damasus I , also with the councils of Carthage and Hippo, (early 400’s) ( local councils), then again at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1400’s) and Trent.(mid 1500’s)steve-b:
I reject the use of the word DEMOTED in the first place since the innovation which is clearly evident from history is that they were promoted in status following the Council of Trent.
And to answer your question with a question, how did a Jew in the first century BCE know what was inspired or not without an infallible declaration from the Roman pontiff?
How did 1st century Jews know what was inspired? Especially when the Jews of Jerusalem didn’t have those 7 books the Jews in the diaspora had.
Seems YOU have a problem. Because Jesus and the NT, quote from those 7 deuterocanonical books also.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
And some remain Continuing Anglicans.
H
Hodos
Guest
So Euripides is scripture? Are the statements of the Mishnah the Jesus quotes regarding divorce being allowable scripture? Just because something is quoted doesn’t make it authoritative. And since we are on the subject why aren’t some of the OT apocryphal works that were found in the extant copies that we have of the Septuagint not declared as scripture such as 3-4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, etc. The same question you are asking me can be asked of you. Why did you cut books out of the Bible? Why didn’t you include NT Apocryphal works that were likewise extant in early Christian copies of the NT and Septuagint such as Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, etc.? When you actually look at the two positions, only one is being consistent here. Your view is basically because I said so 1500 years later. You also ignore the fact that the councils you mention frequently don’t agree with one another with regard to one or more books, primarily of the apocryphal works. So there is that. Our view is because that was the historical view to the Jews and the early Church. Protestants hold that the Hebrew OT works are inspired because that is what was handed down to us from the Intertestamental period, whereas the Greek OT apocryphal works were viewed by Jews during that time in a lesser manner than the Hebrew works. The Jews treated them differently, so we treat them differently. And this position has been held within the Church with varying degrees of agreement up through the Council of Trent, which is why they were called Deuterocanonicals. Secondary. Take it up with Jerome and others if you don’t like it. But that fact isn’t in dispute. With regard to the NT we agree with the books that were declared as canonical because of their antiquity, authorship, and content.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
The answer is,steve-b:
So Euripides is scripture? Are the statements of the Mishnah the Jesus quotes regarding divorce being allowable scripture? Just because something is quoted doesn’t make it authoritative. And since we are on the subject why aren’t some of the OT apocryphal works that were found in the extant copies that we have of the Septuagint not declared as scripture such as 3-4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, etc. The same question you are asking me can be asked of you. Why did you cut books out of the Bible? Why didn’t you include NT Apocryphal works that were likewise extant in early Christian copies of the NT and Septuagint such as Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, etc.? When you actually look at the two positions, only one is being consistent here. Your view is basically because I said so 1500 years later. You also ignore the fact that the councils you mention frequently don’t agree with one another with regard to one or more books, primarily of the apocryphal works. So there is that. Our view is because that was the historical view to the Jews and the early Church. Protestants hold that the Hebrew OT works are inspired because that is what was handed down to us from the Intertestamental period, whereas the Greek OT apocryphal works were viewed by Jews during that time in a lesser manner than the Hebrew works. The Jews treated them differently, so we treat them differently. And this position has been held within the Church with varying degrees of agreement up through the Council of Trent, which is why they were called Deuterocanonicals. Secondary. Take it up with Jerome and others if you don’t like it. But that fact isn’t in dispute. With regard to the NT we agree with the books that were declared as canonical because of their antiquity, authorship, and content.
The only Church Jesus established, and gave all His promises to, the Catholic Church, is the determining factor in what is and is not scripture. Otherwise , there would be NO bible.
H
Hodos
Guest
Gotcha, so essentially, you elevate the authority of the Church over Christ regardless of what he revealed and handed down. This is the entire crux of the debate. The point here being that the scriptures and the promises contained therein are the product of God’s revelation of his Son, not the authority of man. Because here is the thing, I possess those promises in my hand as we speak and can compare what the Church teaches in its doctrine to what is actually revealed in scripture. The entire disagreement about the Reformation is that God revealed his will, provided for the inspiration of the scriptures, and when doctrine and practice was demonstrated to be in contradiction to what God preserved in his word, the position of Pope Leo X was that the Church has the authority to contradict God’s revealed word. This is why there remains a split in the Church. And this is why as discussed above, the schisms that remain in the Church, both with the east and west, will not be healed until there is repentance for that view of infallibility.
Last edited:
- Status