praying to virgin mary and the saints

[kalt]

I did not say all the books but Maccabbe’s is not part of the canon of scripture. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet, an accredited spokesperson for God are inspired and belong in the canon of scripture. The Apocrypha books are not prophetic. No Apocrypha books claim to be written by a prophet. Even the Catholic scholar Cardinal Cajetan who opposed Luther rejected the Apocrypha.

Where did you get that information? Are all the authors of NT books prophets? And how do you decide who is an accredited spokesperson.

Who wrote the books you dispute, and why do you reject the authors?

 

[SemperReformada]

Here is what Cardinal Cajetan wrote and commentary by someone named Carrie concerning it:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Carrie: “Cajetan recognized that though the deuterocanonicals may be called canonical, they were not recognized as canonical in the same sense as the other Old Testament books.”

source: thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html

I’m not sure why you bolded the section you did.

Just before the bolded section Cajetan writes that dc’s were placed in the apocrypha by Jerome and that the words of the councils and doctors are reduced to the correction of Jerome with regards to the dc’s and remember, Jerome rejected the dc’s. Also note that Cajetan wrote that the dc’s were not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

While it is certain that Carthage and Hippo (provinicial councils) included the dc’s and Trent finally ruled infallibly on the canonical status of the dc’s it is also certain that between the early councils and Trent there was quite a bit of uncertainty as to their status.

We have Augustine who accepted the dc’s stating that the individual churches should decide for themselves how to set the canon and this was his opinion after the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Vulgate was sent out complete with Jerome’s prologues disparaging the canonocity of the dc’s. The main scriptural commentary of the middle ages rejected the canonocity of the dc’s (glossa ordinaire). Even at Trent there was some discussion/debate as to whether to include the dc’s or reject them.

None of this probably matters to a Catholic because at the end of the day the RCC did rule authoratatively on the matter but hopefully some will recognize the fact that Luther was nowhere near alone in rejecting the canonical status of the dc’s.

 

[Brendan]

I did not say all the books but Maccabbe’s is not part of the canon of scripture. .

That is not what I asked you. I asked you where exactly did Christ or an Apostle quote from these books.

Could you please answer the question that I asked you.

 

[mlldrl]

I did not say all the books but Maccabbe’s is not part of the canon of scripture. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet, an accredited spokesperson for God are inspired and belong in the canon of scripture. [emphasis added] The Apocrypha books are not prophetic. No Apocrypha books claim to be written by a prophet. Even the Catholic scholar Cardinal Cajetan who opposed Luther rejected the Apocrypha.

Who wrote Hebrews?

M

 

[elvisman]

For one the book of Maccabees is not part of the canon of scripture. If you read the bible you will see that neither Jesus or the disciples quoted any of these books. As for the scriptures you posted, these do not have anything to do with purgatory:shrug: LoL Come on now I showed you scripture why purgatory is not biblical Have a blessed 4th of July my friend

Oh, REALLY?
Well, try these on for size, my prideful brother:

---

Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2 Macc 3:26.

Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Heb 11:35, “…Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection.” The only place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29.

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1 Macc. 4:36 & 52-59.

Oh – here are but a few more references to the Deuterocanonicals that you reject - from the lips of Jesus himself:

---

Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sirach 2:18.

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, “…all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them…” Extension of Tobit 4:15

Lk 25 35-36, “I was hungry and you gave me food…I needed clothes and you clothed me.” Based on Tobit 4:16.

Remember, my ill-informed friend - just because you reject it doesn’t make it untrue.
On the contrary - all it does is make you that much more faithless . . .

 

[elvisman]

As for the scriptures you posted, these do not have anything to do with purgatory:shrug: LoL Come on now I showed you scripture why purgatory is not biblical

You just don’t understand context, do you. You must tall ALL of Scripture in CONTEXT. That’s why there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations - because you all take the scriptures OUT of context and splinter off into more and more denominations.

Okay - I’ll give you an opportunity to dig yourself out of that hole. The following verses speak not of Heaven or Hell because the person WILL BE SAVED. BUT only after suffering.
What then, are the following verses speaking of - if not a purgation of sin and iniquity:

---

1 Cor. 3:10-15
**According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. **
**If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day (judgement) will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. **
**If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. **
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

 

[elvisman]

I’m not sure why you bolded the section you did.

Just before the bolded section Cajetan writes that dc’s were placed in the apocrypha by Jerome and that the words of the councils and doctors are reduced to the correction of Jerome with regards to the dc’s and remember, Jerome rejected the dc’s. Also note that Cajetan wrote that the dc’s were not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

While it is certain that Carthage and Hippo (provinicial councils) included the dc’s and Trent finally ruled infallibly on the canonical status of the dc’s it is also certain that between the early councils and Trent there was quite a bit of uncertainty as to their status.

We have Augustine who accepted the dc’s stating that the individual churches should decide for themselves how to set the canon and this was his opinion after the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Vulgate was sent out complete with Jerome’s prologues disparaging the canonocity of the dc’s. The main scriptural commentary of the middle ages rejected the canonocity of the dc’s (glossa ordinaire). Even at Trent there was some discussion/debate as to whether to include the dc’s or reject them.

None of this probably matters to a Catholic because at the end of the day the RCC did rule authoratatively on the matter but hopefully some will recognize the fact that Luther was nowhere near alone in rejecting the canonical status of the dc’s.

No - Luther wanted to do away with MUCH more. He wanted to rid the Bible of James, which he called the Epistle of straw" (too Catholic for his liking, I guess), 1 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, Jude and parts of Daniel & Esther. This was a prideful man out of control and had it not been for the urging of his contemporaries, he might have gotten away with it. He was no hero.

---

**Also - don’**t forget - the Church only issued doctrines and canons when a belief came into question or there were abuses going on. The Bible as recognized at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage wasn’t declared as final canon until AFTER the Protestant Rebellion and the false doctrines created therein such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. It was then that the Church once again found it necessary to make a final declaration on yet another abuse.

 

[SemperReformada]

No - Luther wanted to do away with MUCH more. He wanted to rid the Bible of James, which he called the Epistle of straw" (too Catholic for his liking, I guess), 1 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, Jude and parts of Daniel & Esther. This was a prideful man out of control and had it not been for the urging of his contemporaries, he might have gotten away with it. He was no hero.

---

**Also - don’**t forget - the Church only issued doctrines and canons when a belief came into question or there were abuses going on. The Bible as recognized at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage wasn’t declared as final canon until AFTER the Protestant Rebellion and the false doctrines created therein such as Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. It was then that the Church once again found it necessary to make a final declaration on yet another abuse.

Luther didn’t get rid of James or any of the other NT books accepted as canonical by both of us.

During the time between Carthage/Hippo and Trent, there was no consensus as to the canonical status of the dc’s, none.

Augustine understood that Carthage and Hippo were provinicial in nature and had absolutely no right to settle case for the church. That is why he wrote:

Augustine:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustin, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8.

Augustine gave advice to determine which books were truly canonical because even after Carthage and Hippo there was no consensus. He certainly did not appeal to either Carthage or Hippo as the final say.

Some folks will point at the Vulgate and say that the church sent out the Vulgate and since the Vulgate included the dc’s it must mean that the church had settled the case. The Vulgate did include the dc’s but it also included Jeromes prologues to the dc’s that clearly disparaged their canonicity.

During the middle ages we have the main scriptural commentary (glossa ordinaire) accepting Jerome’s views on the dc’s and placing them on a level beneath the rest of canonical scripture.

Even at Trent there was debate as to the status of the dc’s.

So, Trent did settle the case (at least for the RCC) but it is patently false to assume that Hippo and Carthage settled the case since between the two councils and Trent we find anything but the issue of the OT canon be solved and that was my point on the other post.

I’m not so sure that Trent’s ruling on the canon was soley in response to the reformation since there was quite a movement in the RCC which rejected the canonocity of the dc’s.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for this. While I’m not willing to accept the D-c as canon, I do have an open mind, and I certainly think it is appropriate for western n-CC’s to spend more time with them.

Originally Posted by Church Militant
Because no one challenged them until then. The only reason that Trent defined it was because the so-called “reformers” errantly attacked it.

I think, Michael, this is an overstatement. There were many who disputed the d-c books from St. Jerome on, and in ways not unlike Luther. As with other things during the Reformation, positions hardened as feelings did, on both sides. This thread indicates that in some quarters, feelings are still hard.

Orginally posted by Zooey]
Thank you, Jon, again, for your presence & your words.

Thanks for your nice words.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You’re right. Just because they are referenced in the NT doesn’t mean they are canconical, anymore than their not being referenced would preclude them from being canonical.
Still, my mind is open on the issue.

Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

Because no one challenged them until then. The only reason that Trent defined it was because the so-called “reformers” errantly attacked it.

While I have no hope of convincing you that the deutero’s are not canonical, I do hope I can show you that it’s demonstrably false that no one challenged the canonical status of the deutero’s until the reformers came around.

You may know that Jerome did not give canonical status to the deutero’s and in fact his prolgoues to the dc’s in the Vulgate caused many to doubt there canonocity.
newadvent.org:

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others–a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage.

Note that Jerome’s comments contained within the Vulgate which the church sent out caused a current of doubt. Also note that according to the Catholic Encyclopedia the Oriental church accepted the dc’s but not on the authority of Carthage.

During the middle ages we find even more doubt as a result of Jerome.
newadvent.org:

The canon of the Old Testament during the Middle Ages
The Greek Church
The result of this tendency among the Greeks was that about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees. That all the deuteros were liturgically recognized in the Greek Church at the era of the schism in the ninth century, is indicated by the “Syntagma Canonum” of Photius.

The Latin Church
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. 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.

Perhaps more telling is that even at Trent we see doubt with regards to the canonical status of the dc’s.

Continued in the next post…

 

[SemperReformada]

Even at Trent we see some of the Tridentine fathers doubting the status of the dc’s and accepting Jerome’s judgement. As a side note, notice that there were some fathers present at Trent who did not agree that tradition was equal to scripture and that by accpeting the dc’s as full canonical they would be rejecting one apostolic tradition by accepting the dc’s into the canon.
Huber Jedin:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.
“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against “tradition” as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

“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……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.

Alluded to in this post and the other are several other points.

The glossa ordinaire was the preiminent scrpture commentary during the middle ages and it flatly rejected giving the dc’s full canonical status.

Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan also rejected the dc’s and remember it was Cajetan who interviewed Luther at the Diet of Worms.

As I first stated, it is not my intent to disuade you from your belief but to simply show you that the reformers were certainly not the first to doubt the canonicity of the dc’s…not by a long shot.

 

[freedomwriter]

Where in the NT do you see Jesus or the disciples quoting the Apocrypha. All Zooey did was print a lot of scriptures lol. Don’t go by what Zooey says you show me where these quotes are.

 

[freedomwriter]

Where did you get that information? Are all the authors of NT books prophets? And how do you decide who is an accredited spokesperson.

Who wrote the books you dispute, and why do you reject the authors?

The OT was considered prophetic. Moses who wrote the first 5 books was a prophet Dt 18:15. The rest of the OT books were known as the prophets Matt 5:17 The NT apostles and prophets composed the entire NT Eph 3:5. The Apocryphal books are not prophetic None of them claim to be prophetic.

 

[freedomwriter]

That is not what I asked you. I asked you where exactly did Christ or an Apostle quote from these books.

Could you please answer the question that I asked you.

Jesus nor the disciples quoted any of the apocrypha books.

 

[freedomwriter]

Who wrote Hebrews?

M

Many believe that it was Luke who wrote the book of Hebrews but that is not for certain.

 

[Zooey]

:blushing: Not at all! Zooey simply has learned from experience to keep scripturecatholic.com/ in her favorites. (I don’t somehow like the look of my Bible’s pages with grease & salt from potato chips on them…uch

Luther didn’t get rid of James or any of the other NT books accepted as canonical by both of us.

Well, it wasn’t for lack of trying…

Where in the NT do you see Jesus or the disciples quoting the Apocrypha. All Zooey did was print a lot of scriptures lol. Don’t go by what Zooey says you show me where these quotes are.

You asked for Scripture references & I gave you Scripture references…so many I had to edit my reply for length FOUR times to get them into one post. With the quotes attached, I would have needed my very own page!!

Jesus nor the disciples quoted any of the apocrypha books.

Since you appear not to have an:coffeeread: unedited Bible at hand, may I suggest a visit to: www.drbo.org/
Because I gave you enough to keep you busy for several days, yean.

 

[christopherdere]

One thing always remembers whenever you’re praying is: Pray from the bottom of your heart. It’s not compulsory go any particular place or front of anyone for pray. Your feelings are important. I believe God is in your soul.

 

[Zooey]

Never said the Apocrypha books were not used. I said they are not part of the canon of scriptures.

No, you said that the reason you say the deuterocanon is (in your personal opinion) not part of the canon, was that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted them.
I gave you a whole pile of references where they did just exactly that, and now, you say that wasn’t what you meant…and I suspect that you never, ever, expected to find anyone here who would not only call you on that, but provide the backing for it.

So…Freedomwriter is of 2 opinions; either (A) the deuterocanon doesn’t count for you because Jesus never quoted it, nor did the rest of Scripture, or (B) the deuterocanon doesn’t count for you, because you say its not in the canon of Scriptures.
Now, (A) is an honest opinion. It’s mistaken–see those quotes!!, but its honest, & honesty is a virtue.
But (B), au contraire, is an opinion based on…nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.Its an opinion based on an opinion. You can hold to it like stick-tights to a mule, laddie, but it’s still just** your** opinion…which, like an oral agreement, “isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on”.

I just knew it!! Hey,** I :nerd:said this would happen**; and :wink:here we go:

Zooey:

I’ve said it before, and I’ll no doubt say it again: “I think I have an idea to make the Bible more popular; let’s throw out the Ten Commandments and put in the ‘Six or Seven Excellent Suggestions’…and if anyone doesn’t like it, tell them that it is so because Zooey says sohttp://bestsmileys.com/tongs/11.gif."neener, neener, neener”

:curtsey:

 

[Nino]

false idols ?? Oh you mean the genuflecting to the pedophile,child molestor,druggy, Mike Jackson! Sorry if I missed that in your contribution to our site…also how come its ok to use the term.‘Hail Mary’ in a football sense…a desperately thrown pass appears to be its deftiniton…how quaint…more on this next time boys and girls while we hear how the tolerant ones remove that slogan from the announcers and columnists jargon…heres one in front of me.titled 'Something about that hail mary" and on it goes …football and a desperate pass…ya gotta luv the left…they are so sensitive are they not?