Origin of the Nephillim

[Gorgias]

Let me put it like this. The Catholic Church approved a set of books.

Absolutely, and there’s no denying that fact.

But did not disapprove of any other books which might be contained in a different canonical set.

You’re waffling again: I’m not talking about anyone else’s “canonical set”, just the Catholic canon.

Here’s the thing: I’ll concede to you, prodigal (and Jimmy Akin!) that the Church did not explicitly exclude any books from the canon at Trent. However, I think that the effect of the infallible pronouncements is that there is a distinct and final canon of the Bible. It follows from simple logic:

• first off, let’s admit that it’s patently absurd to claim that the Church could have created a list of “non-canonical” books. That list would be endless – and would require constant updating and modifying!
• second, let recognize that Trent’s anathemae are legal assertions and not doctrinal assertions, per se. However, it’s important to note that what Trent was doing was identifying doctrinal (i.e., infallible) positions and anathematizing those who held contrary positions.
• given that Trent is dealing in its anathemae with doctrine (and those who deny it), then we conclude that its infallibility is expressed in its clauses that begins “if anyone says…”.
• Therefore, if Trent speaks infallibly about the canon, then the canon cannot be modified. After all, if it did modify the canon, it would be changing the content of doctrine.

So, it’s clear that, if Trent infallibly declares what the canon is, then that canon cannot be added to or modified. Hence, we get the catechism’s assertion of “no new revelation.”

Thanks for playing. Please come again.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

The Galasian Decree explicitly named books as heretical in the 490s by Pope Galasius l. It names the books as canonical from Pope Damsus l and then names the books to be avoided, which is a pretty extensive list. Interestingly none of the books in this conversation are listed.

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

 

[De_Maria]

You’re waffling again: I’m not talking about anyone else’s “canonical set”, just the Catholic canon.

Here’s the thing: I’ll concede to you, prodigal (and Jimmy Akin!) that the Church did not explicitly exclude any books from the canon at Trent.

Thank you.

However, I think that the effect of the infallible pronouncements is that there is a distinct and final canon of the Bible.

As long as you recognize that this is simply your opinion. That’s fine.
But you have been presenting your opinion as Catholic Doctrine.
And that’s wrong.

It follows from simple logic:

• first off, let’s admit that it’s patently absurd to claim that the Church could have created a list of “non-canonical” books…

No one has made that claim. All we have said is that which you admitted to be true, above. You said and we agree:

I’ll concede to you, prodigal (and Jimmy Akin!) that the Church did not explicitly exclude any books from the canon at Trent.

• second, let recognize that Trent’s anathemae are legal assertions and not doctrinal assertions, per se.

Hm?

However, it’s important to note that what Trent was doing was identifying doctrinal (i.e., infallible) positions and anathematizing those who held contrary positions.

OK.

• given that Trent is dealing in its anathemae with doctrine (and those who deny it), then we conclude that its infallibility is expressed in its clauses that begins “if anyone says…”.

Ok.

• Therefore, if Trent speaks infallibly about the canon, then the canon cannot be modified.

Non sequitur.

The Catholic Church has used many canons in it’s history. But the one which was most widely used was the canon of the Latin Vulgate. Protestants were questioning the validity of many NT books and had removed the deuterocanonicals from the canon.
The Catholic Church, in response, declared that all the books of the Latin Vulgate
were authentic, but did not claim that any books outside the Latin Vulgate were not authentic. Nor did She say that the Latin Vulgate was the only Bible which contained an authentic canon.

After all, if it did modify the canon, it would be changing the content of doctrine.

The Catholic Church did not make any comment about future modifications of the canon.

So, it’s clear that, if Trent infallibly declares what the canon is, then that canon cannot be added to or modified. Hence, we get the catechism’s assertion of “no new revelation.”

But Trent did not say that the “canon_is_” the only canon. She said that the “Latin Vulgate canon is” valid. She also did not say that the Catholic Church would never, in the future, also accept the Orthodox Canon, nor did she say that she does not now accept the Orthdox Canon as an authentic canon.

If this is what you believe, you need to prove it from explicit text.

Thanks for playing. Please come again.

If you’re happy, I’m happy.

 

[Lavenderson]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gorgias]

But you have been presenting your opinion as Catholic Doctrine.
And that’s wrong.

It follows logically. (And it’s right. )

No one has made that claim.

Seriously? Everyone (including yourself, IIRC) have kept maintaining that “the Church never declared any book to be non-canonical!”. That’s because it’s absurd to suggest that the Church might ever go off on the boondoggle of attempting to ID every book that’s not canonical.

Hm?

Not sure what wasn’t clear. The anathemae are proclamations of legal penalties.

Non sequitur.

Hardly. If Trent asserts that “if you disagree with this doctrinal statement, then this penalty is proclaimed against you”, then what I’ve said logically follows.

but did not claim that any books outside the Latin Vulgate were not authentic.

Again: patently absurd to claim that it’s reasonable to attempt to define a list of all the non-canonical books. Rather, by declaring which books are canonical, you’re declaring that all others are not. QED.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

We agree on most.

But the one which was most widely used was the canon of the Latin Vulgate. Protestants were questioning the validity of many NT books and had removed the deuterocanonicals from the canon.

This isn’t entirely accurate. The Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras were in the Latin Vulgate but were not accepted into the Canon.

 

[SeraficLeo]

The canon is closed.

This could have been a fun and cool discussion. How did it become about the canon?

 

[De_Maria]

No one has made that claim.

Seriously?

Yes.

Everyone (including yourself, IIRC) have kept maintaining that “the Church never declared any book to be non-canonical!”. That’s because it’s absurd to suggest that the Church might ever go off on the boondoggle of attempting to ID every book that’s not canonical.

Actually, that explains why the Catholic Church did not “go off on the boondoggle of attempting to ID every book that’s not canonical.” Nor did the Catholic Church go off on the boondoggle of attempting to deny the canonicity of books that are accepted as canonical by canonical Churches with valid Sacraments.

It’s much simpler to simply state the books in the Latin Vulgate Bible are canonical.

Not sure what wasn’t clear. The anathemae are proclamations of legal penalties.

And as such, Doctrinal. In fact, Dogmatic.

Hardly. If Trent asserts that “if you disagree with this doctrinal statement, then this penalty is proclaimed against you”, then what I’ve said logically follows.

Not so. The Catholic Church has not decreed anathemas against the Orthodox for holding books canonical which the Catholic Church has not included in the Latin Vulgate.

The only group upon whom a penalty is held (i.e. anathema) is one who declares any book in the Latin Vulgate as non-canonical or inauthentic.

Again: patently absurd to claim that it’s reasonable to attempt to define a list of all the non-canonical books.

No one has made that claim. Your stuck in your own imagined world view.

Rather, by declaring which books are canonical, you’re declaring that all others are not. QED.

Nope. If that were true, then the anathema which was declared against those who deny the validity of the Latin Vulgate, would also pertain to the Orthodox and all who hold more books in their canon than the Catholic Church. But that isn’t so.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s much simpler to simply state the books in the Latin Vulgate Bible are canonical.

True. And it’s much simpler to ignore the fact that this means that other books are non-canonical.

And as such, Doctrinal. In fact, Dogmatic.

Precisely. And if these are doctrinal assertions, then the things they declare are doctrinal. And therefore, irreformable. Like, for instance, the things that they declare are ‘canonical Scripture’. Thanks for agreeing with me.

The Catholic Church has not decreed anathemas against the Orthodox for holding books canonical which the Catholic Church has not included in the Latin Vulgate.

Please re-read what you wrote. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church of the time of Trent can not declare canonical penalties against the Orthodox. Then realize that your assertions are thereby baseless.

Nope. If that were true, then the anathema which was declared against those who deny the validity of the Latin Vulgate, would also pertain to the Orthodox and all who hold more books in their canon than the Catholic Church.

Nice try. But no… not reasonable. At the time of Trent, could the Catholic Church issue canonical penalties against the Orthodox faithful? Of course not. Therefore, it’s not true, as you assert, that “the anathema[e] [of Trent] would also pertain to the Orthodox.” But hey… nice try.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

True. And it’s much simpler to ignore the fact that this means that other books are non-canonical.

So you claim 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh are canonical? They were and are in the Latin Vulgate. The post Trent Clementine Vulgate included them in an appendix. Before so they were in the Old Testament. Also Psalm 151 and the Letter to the Laodiceans was in some Latin Vulgates at certain points.

 

[De_Maria]

True. And it’s much simpler to ignore the fact that this means that other books are non-canonical.

That proves my point.

Precisely.

You were just denying this. Now you’ve switched sides as though this were your argument. Here’s what you said:

• second, let recognize that Trent’s anathemae are legal assertions and not doctrinal assertions, per se.

And if these are doctrinal assertions, then the things they declare are doctrinal.

Exactly what I was saying.

And therefore, irreformable. Like, for instance, the things that they declare are ‘canonical Scripture’. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

You sound as though you think you made a point. But you’ve made mine. And you forget that your original point is not proven. There is nothing written that says that when the Catholic Church pronounces something valid, that other things are automatically invalid. That’s the “either/or” Protestant way of thinking. The Catholic logic is that things can and frequently are, “both/and”.

Please re-read what you wrote.

I understand exactly what I’ve written.

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church of the time of Trent can not declare canonical penalties against the Orthodox. Then realize that your assertions are thereby baseless.

But there were many Eastern Catholics who continued to use the Orthodox Canon. The Catholic Church did not issue any penalties towards them.

Nice try. But no… not reasonable. At the time of Trent, could the Catholic Church issue canonical penalties against the Orthodox faithful? Of course not. Therefore, it’s not true, as you assert, that “the anathema[e] [of Trent] would also pertain to the Orthodox.” But hey… nice try.

Bottomline, there is no penalty issued against anyone who uses the Orthodox canon today. In fact, I consider the Orthodox canon authentic and there is no anathema against me for this. I also consider the Latin Vulgate and all its books canonical. There is no contradiction in those two ideas.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Bottomline, there is no penalty issued against anyone who uses the Orthodox canon today. In fact, I consider the Orthodox canon authentic and there is no anathema against me for this. I also consider the Latin Vulgate and all its books canonical. There is no contradiction in those two ideas.

It would be pretty self inflicting to the Church to anathematize the Orthodox Canon seeing as all they really do is accept all of the books of the Septuagint. The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint to defend why it has more books than Protestants.
The Orthodox had already spoken Greek so they just used the Septuagint passed down to them, no need to translate it into Latin like in the west.

 

[Gorgias]

That proves my point.

No, it just points out that it’s unreasonable to list all non-canonical books. Therefore, the lack of an explicit list of non-canonical books doesn’t imply that there was no desire to not exclude certain books from the canon, but merely that their lack of presence already implicitly makes that case.

Exactly what I was saying.

LOL! No… I’m just pointing out that, if the anathemae are doctrinal/dogmatic – as you claim – then their assertions are irreformable, and therefore, cannot change. That would be like saying “hey, it’s doctrine that there’s a Trinity” one day and then “oops! It’s really a Quadrinity!” another. Just… can’t… happen.

You sound as though you think you made a point. But you’ve made mine.

I think I have. If the anathemae are doctrinal, then we can’t add to them – which means that anything that’s not listed as canonical back then can’t be added as canonical later on. In other words, my point – that the list from Trent is closed – is what’s been proven. (If you want to say that’s a victory for you, though… have at it! )

There is nothing written that says that when the Catholic Church pronounces something valid, that other things are automatically invalid. That’s the “either/or” Protestant way of thinking. The Catholic logic is that things can and frequently are, “both/and”.

Except when it comes to dogma. You can’t say that Mary is both the Theotokos and not the Mother of God.

In fact, I consider the Orthodox canon authentic and there is no anathema against me for this.

There’s no need for you to be excommunicated. As a Catholic, though, you’re denying what you said was dogmatic – which is confusing – but…

 

[Thomasbradley312]

There’s no need for you to be excommunicated. As a Catholic, though, you’re denying what you said was dogmatic – which is confusing –

No he isn’t.
He accepts all of the books the Church said are Canon. The Church never said the books Orthodox accept are also to be avoided thus there is nothing wrong with them.
Trust me, there were questions regarding 3, 4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3, 4 Maccabees… the Church was well aware of their existence since most of them have been in the Vulgate at some point or always have been in an appendix. What does the Church say though? It says they are outside the Canon defined by Trent but nonetheless should still be read. Thus the Church has no issue with them and may even encourage people to read them. If it was considered dangerous or something it wouldnt have. For example in the introduction to the appendix in the Clementine Vulgate, Pope Clement Vlll writes:
Oratio Manassa, necnon Libri duo, qui sub libri Tertii & Quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum Librorum, quos sancta Tridentina Synodus suscepit, & pro Canonicis suscipiendos decreuit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a nonnullis sanctis Patribus interdum citantur, & in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperiuntur.

The Prayer of Manasseh, as well as two books, which circulate under the name of the Third and Fourth Book of Ezra, are set aside in this place—that is, outside the series of canonical books, which the holy Tridentine Synod accepted, and determined should be taken up for canonical—lest they should perish completely, since they are sometimes cited by some of the holy Fathers, and they are found in some Latin books, both manuscript and printed.

 

[Gorgias]

He accepts all of the books the Church said are Canon. The Church never said the books Orthodox accept are also to be avoided thus there is nothing wrong with them.

Close, but not quite: he said that he accepts books that the Catholic Church hasn’t said are canonical as if they were – that is, that they’re divinely inspired. The Church hasn’t said that. It’s an important distinction.

However, if he thinks that “not being anathematized” for doing so is proof that it’s salutatory, then he’s drawing a false conclusion. There are lots of Catholics who believe things that the Church doesn’t teach… and the Church doesn’t bother excommunicating them, either.

It says they are outside the Canon defined by Trent but nonetheless should still be read.

Absolutely! Yet, you’re answering a different question than what’s been being debated here. It’s not “can we read these books?” (to which the answer is obviously “sure!”), but rather, “is the canon closed, such that these books will never be declared canonical?” (to which the answer is “yes, that’s correct”). The question isn’t even “will the Catholic Church correct other Churches on their own doctrines/dogmata/canon?” – and, for those playing along at home, the answer to that one is “no – why would she?”

 

[De_Maria]

No, it just points out that it’s unreasonable to list all non-canonical books.

And thereby supports my contention that the Church did not do that.

Therefore, the lack of an explicit list of non-canonical books doesn’t imply that there was no desire to not exclude certain books from the canon, but merely that their lack of presence already implicitly makes that case.

In your opinion. By the same logic, I conclude that the lack of such a list implies that the Catholic Church simply did not deny the authenticity of books already accepted as canonical by other canonical Churches.

LOL! No… I’m just pointing out that, if the anathemae are doctrinal/dogmatic – as you claim – then their assertions are irreformable, and therefore, cannot change.

That is correct. But you’re reading doctrine into these statements which are not contained therein.

That would be like saying “hey, it’s doctrine that there’s a Trinity” one day and then “oops! It’s really a Quadrinity!” another. Just… can’t… happen.

Except that, the Teaching EXPLICITLY identifies One and only One God and three Divine Persons in this One God.

Whereas, the Catholic Church did not say that there is only one valid Canon and the only valid books are the 73 which are included in this one canon… In fact, she ignored that topic all together and simply stated that anyone who denies the validity of this Latin Vulgate canon, is anathema.

I think I have.

I think you’re wrong.

If the anathemae are doctrinal, then we can’t add to them – which means that anything that’s not listed as canonical back then can’t be added as canonical later on. In other words, my point – that the list from Trent is closed – is what’s been proven. (If you want to say that’s a victory for you, though… have at it! )

That’s not the nature of the Teaching. There are many existing canons. The Catholic Church did not say, “only this canon is valid”. And could easily say, “this other canon is also valid” at any time in the future.

Except when it comes to dogma. You can’t say that Mary is both the Theotokos and not the Mother of God.

Good point. And you can’t say that the canon of the Latin Vulgate is both canonical and not canonical. But you can say that the Orthodox canon is legitimate and authentic.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church has identified certain verses in the Bible as teaching certain things. For example, the Catholic Church says that John 3:5 is speaking about being justified in Baptism (Trent VI, Chapter IV). That does not mean that the Church denies that John 3:5 teaches that one must be baptized in order to enter heaven.

There’s no need for you to be excommunicated. As a Catholic, though, you’re denying what you said was dogmatic – which is confusing – but…

On the contrary, I accept the Dogma but reject your opinion. The Catholic Church does not deny the authenticity of the Orthodox canon. If you claim this is so, you need to provide the explicit statement.

 

[De_Maria]

Close, but not quite: he said that he accepts books that the Catholic Church hasn’t said are canonical as if they were – that is, that they’re divinely inspired. The Church hasn’t said that. It’s an important distinction.

Not quite. Let me rephrase that so that it says what I mean.

“he said that he accepts books that the Catholic Church hasn’t DENIED are canonical as if they were – that is, that they’re divinely inspired.”

The Catholic Church has not DENIED the canonicity nor the inspiration of any of the books of the Orthodox Church.

However, if he thinks that “not being anathematized” for doing so is proof that it’s salutatory, then he’s drawing a false conclusion. There are lots of Catholics who believe things that the Church doesn’t teach…

And you are proof of that in this discussion.

and the Church doesn’t bother excommunicating them, either.

You’re referring to latae sententia. It doesn’t apply here, since the Catholic Church has not denied the canonicity nor authenticity of the Orthodox Canon.

Absolutely! Yet, you’re answering a different question than what’s been being debated here.

No, he’s merely elaborating in order to support the answer to the proper question.

It’s not “can we read these books?” (to which the answer is obviously “sure!”),

Obviously. For more reasons than you care to admit.

but rather, “is the canon closed, such that these books will never be declared canonical?” (to which the answer is “yes, that’s correct”).

On the contrary, the answer is, “no, the canon is not closed.” The Catholic Church never even dealt with that question. The Catholic Church merely defended the inspiration of the Latin Vulgate.

The question isn’t even “will the Catholic Church correct other Churches on their own doctrines/dogmata/canon?”

Thus, again, proving my point.

– and, for those playing along at home, the answer to that one is “no – why would she?”

In this case, because there’s an entire branch of the Western Church which follows Eastern Tradition and many of them, possibly, use the Orthodox canon.

But, again, you’re merely creating straw men to knock down. No one has said that this is what the Church did.

Bottomline, the Church also did not say, “The canon is closed.” Nor did she say, “this is the only canon which is inspired and valid.” Nor did she say many other things. You have admitted as much. You said:

Here’s the thing: I’ll concede to you, prodigal (and Jimmy Akin!) that the Church did not explicitly exclude any books from the canon at Trent.

 

[Gorgias]

That is correct. But you’re reading doctrine into these statements which are not contained therein.

LOL! You yourself just called them doctrinal! So… are they, or are they not?

The Catholic Church did not say, “only this canon is valid”. And could easily say, “this other canon is also valid” at any time in the future.

Again, that would be like saying “this doctrine is true” and “this conflicting doctrine is true”. Unless you mean to say that the setting of the canon is merely authoritative and not doctrinal, you can’t get away with saying “this is canon” and “this other different thing is canon”.

The Catholic Church does not deny the authenticity of the Orthodox canon.

However, the Catholic Church does not declare as canonical – and therefore, divinely inspired – things that you claim actually are. No need for “explicit statement”. You’ve made your dissent with Church teaching abundantly clear.

Not quite. Let me rephrase that so that it says what I mean.

“he said that he accepts books that the Catholic Church hasn’t DENIED are canonical as if they were – that is, that they’re divinely inspired.”

So, if I said “Horton Hears a Who” is canonical and divinely inspired, because the Catholic Church hasn’t denied that it is"… wouldn’t you write me off as a loon? Wouldn’t I be making a statement outside of and contradictory to the actual teachings of the Catholic Church?

The question isn’t even “will the Catholic Church correct other Churches on their owndoctrines/dogmata/canon?”

Thus, again, proving my point.

Except that we’re not talking about other churches. I’m going to leave that point alone from now on. It’s been demonstrated that you’re beating a dead horse, but you continue to do so, in the hopes that it will bolster your case. (It doesn’t. )

Bottomline, the Church also did not say, “The canon is closed.” Nor did she say, “this is the only canon which is inspired and valid.”

No, but when she said other things, they logically implied these two statements.

 

[De_Maria]

LOL! You yourself just called them doctrinal! So… are they, or are they not?

Yes, they are. But you’re reading doctrine into them that is not contained therein.

The Doctrine in the Tridentine condemnation of anyone who declares the canon of the Latin Vulgate is simply that. There is no other doctrine which you are reading into it that the canon is closed.

Again, that would be like saying “this doctrine is true” and “this conflicting doctrine is true”.

There is no conflict there. It is a matter of your opinion.

Unless you mean to say that the setting of the canon is merely authoritative and not doctrinal, you can’t get away with saying “this is canon” and “this other different thing is canon”.

Yes, you can. It’s like saying, a German Shepherd is a dog. You read into that statement that a German Shepherd is the only dog. But there are other types of dogs.

The canon of the Latin Vulgate is genuine. That does not mean that the canon of the Orthodox Church, is not.

However, the Catholic Church does not declare as canonical – and therefore, divinely inspired…

There is no therefore in those two ideas. That is a matter of your opinion, only.
The Church did not consider the Orthodox canon for the very reason that you expressed earlier. Why would they?

The Catholic Church was merely concerned that individuals were declaring the Latin Vulgate illegitimate. She issued an anathema for anyone holding that view.

– things that you claim actually are. No need for “explicit statement”. You’ve made your dissent with Church teaching abundantly clear.

On the contrary, all Catholic Doctrine is explicit and the Catholic Church does not issue anathemas for “implied” doctrines. That would be a recipe for disaster since people like you see implications in everything that you suspect to be true.

So, if I said “Horton Hears a Who” is canonical and divinely inspired, because the Catholic Church hasn’t denied that it is"… wouldn’t you write me off as a loon?

That’s why I’m writing you off as a loon now. The Catholic Church has not said that Horton is canonical and divinely inspired. Nor has she said that the Orthodox canon is not.

You are going by what the Catholic Church has not said.

I am going by what she has said. You admitted it yourself. Do I need to quote you again?

Wouldn’t I be making a statement outside of and contradictory to the actual teachings of the Catholic Church?

Yep.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

continued with @Gorgias

Except that we’re not talking about other churches.

Thus again, proving my point.

I’m going to leave that point alone from now on. It’s been demonstrated that you’re beating a dead horse, but you continue to do so, in the hopes that it will bolster your case. (It doesn’t. )

On the contrary, you’ve admitted your error but continue to argue the point. You killed your own horse and still want to ride it.

No, but when she said other things, they logically implied these two statements.

Implied statements are not doctrines for which the Catholic Church will issue anathemas. She will first spell out the Doctrine, explicitly and then issue an anathema for those who violate it intentionally. That’s a fact, Jack. Name one anathema that was issued on an implied doctrine.