Protestant Canon

[spina1953]

It seems to me that since Cajetan was a Bishop, he had the authority to make sure that what was preached and what was proclaimed by any theologian was within the confines of Catholic teachings. Luther was a monk, ie, priest ,so therefore, he does not carry the same weight of authority that a Bishop has. There is a question as to whether or not Luther was a good theologian, which is beside the point. As to a canon or rule it means that what had been decided as to what books whether or not they have or had been disputed becomes moot since in the end they were decided and s becomes the standard of use in the Church teachings.

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that since Cajetan was a Bishop, he had the authority to make sure that what was preached and what was proclaimed by any theologian was within the confines of Catholic teachings. Luther was a monk, ie, priest ,so therefore, he does not carry the same weight of authority that a Bishop has. There is a question as to whether or not Luther was a good theologian, which is beside the point. As to a canon or rule it mans that what had bed decided as to what books whether or not they have or had been disputed becomes moot since in the end they were decided and s becomes the standard of use in the Church teachings.

That’s an interesting point of view from a Catholic, since Cajetan did not think the DC’s to be canonical. However, I don’t believe the rank of bishop was required.
Finally, as TertiumQuid points out, the New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that even the Catholic Church does not consider the matter finalized until Trent. Luther does not fall under Trent, since he was dead by that time.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It is a known fact that Luther spent 11 week translating the NT, which was published in 1522. This was hardly a scholarly accomplishment and I would say that the it was extremely disrespectful towards Scripture to do such a rushed job. Furthermore, his “translation” was very biased in favor of his pet doctrine, Salvation by Faith Alone. In fact, he read SBFA into Scripture where it

Following up on this comment, Tim, I found this:

Luther devoted himself to a new task. He translated the New Testament from its original Greek into German within eleven weeks;** the work was later edited by Melanchthon and other specialists and printed in 1522.** This so-called “September Testament” was tremendously popular in Protestant areas and as a result made a large contribution to the development of a standardized written German-language.

Apparently there was no disrespect here, either, as he saw to it that his work was review by a number of specialists, including Melanchthon.

luther.de/en/wartburg.html

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

1. Do you think that the Catholics of Luther’s day were wrong to criticize him over his statements?

No. They were allowed their opinion, as well. It would be hypocritical for me, on the one hand, to demand Luther be given his liberty, while on the other complaining about the Catholic liberty of others.

What I find ironic in this dialog is that JohnNC is being more consistent to Catholic theology.

It seems to me that since Cajetan was a Bishop, he had the authority to make sure that what was preached and what was proclaimed by any theologian was within the confines of Catholic teachings. Luther was a monk, ie, priest ,so therefore, he does not carry the same weight of authority that a Bishop has.

Well, if this is the case, it would certainly give even more credibility to what JonNC has been saying all along. Cardinal Cajetan questioned the authenticity of certain New Testament books. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out he questioned “the authorship of several epistles… Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a stronger position on his “questioning” and says, “He expressed strong doubts about the literal meaning of Canticles and the Apocalypse; the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 8:1-11; and the authorship of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and Jude.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

You say that Luther had the Catholic liberty’. I need to understand this statement better. Exactly who, specifically and exactly, that the ‘Catholic liberty’? Did all lay Catholics have that liberty? Or was it Catholic Theologians, or Professors, or Doctors, or monks or Priests? Which is it?

This sort of question was fielded one time by Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis. Sungenis appears to be implying that all Catholics in general are bound to a stated dogma, but before that have liberty:

As regards infallibility, it is true that only at the council of Trent did the canon finally become infallible and irreformable, and that is because Trent made it crystal clear it was doing so. The Council of Florence did not use the key words in its formulation that Trent finally used. Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence’s canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. But this would only force the Church to make the final decision, and it did so in 1563, after which Luther would have been bound to obey it. If not, he would have been excommunicated, just as he was in 1520.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states about something that becomes dogma: “When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith.”

 

[JonNC]

=TertiumQuid;11591102]What I find ironic in this dialog is that JohnNC is being more consistent to Catholic theology.

Oddly enough, I’ve been accused of this before in other dialogues, even by some Catholics.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This sort of question was fielded one time by Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis. Sungenis appears to be implying that all Catholics in general are bound to a stated dogma, but before that have liberty:

The Catholic Encyclopedia states about something that becomes dogma: “When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith.”

Great quote, James.

I know Mr. Sungenis, as an apologist, doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church, but his opinion does seem to fit what I have understood Catholic practice to be on the matter.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

That’s an interesting point of view from a Catholic, since Cajetan did not think the DC’s to be canonical. However, I don’t believe the rank of bishop was required.
Finally, as TertiumQuid points out, the New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that even the Catholic Church does not consider the matter finalized until Trent. Luther does not fall under Trent, since he was dead by that time.

Jon

Hi Jon NC: Thanks for the reply. The point I am trying to make which I see seems vague now that I have reread it is that what while I do agree that Cajetan did not think the DC’s to be canonical that was a personal opinion of his and at the time while the canon was adhered to it was not finalized till Trent. While I do not pretend to know the belief structure of the Lutheran Church as to Bishops, I can only speak as a Catholic understanding the role of the Bishops in the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and as such ordain priests and also make sure that what priests teach and preach are as what the Catholic Church teaches and preach. Bishops have authority , which priests being under the authority of the Bishop does not have the same authority. Melito, Eusebius, and Jerome etc… were Bishops, I am not sure at the moment about Erasmus, but do know that he was a scholar.

Since the time that the Books of the Old and new Testament were being considered as to which books would be acknowledged as inspired, some were accepted without debate while others were debated as to whether or not they were inspired in some way. this took a long time to decide and was as you said finalized at Trent. However, while the DC books were disputed since there inclusion before Trent, The Church did think that somehow they were inspired in some way that they did not yet understand, so in the end the Church at Trent decided that they were in fact inspired so the canon as such was finalized. This means that all of the books in what we call the Catholic Bible are indeed inspired. There were a great many books that did not make it into the canon, and some of those books were disputed and thought to be inspired by some of Bishops of the time, but in the end there were rejected because it was determined not to be neither inspired or added to orthodox teaching of the Church Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

=spina1953;11591523]Hi Jon NC: Thanks for the reply. The point I am trying to make which I see seems vague now that I have reread it is that what while I do agree that Cajetan did not think the DC’s to be canonical that was a personal opinion of his and at the time while the canon was adhered to it was not finalized till Trent.

I would agree.

While I do not pretend to know the belief structure of the Lutheran Church as to Bishops, I can only speak as a Catholic understanding the role of the Bishops in the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and as such ordain priests and also make sure that what priests teach and preach are as what the Catholic Church teaches and preach. Bishops have authority , which priests being under the authority of the Bishop does not have the same authority. Melito, Eusebius, and Jerome etc… were Bishops, I am not sure at the moment about Erasmus, but do know that he was a scholar.

I understand that, as well.

Since the time that the Books of the Old and new Testament were being considered as to which books would be acknowledged as inspired, some were accepted without debate while others were debated as to whether or not they were inspired in some way. this took a long time to decide and was as you said finalized at Trent.

Agreed.

However, while the DC books were disputed since there inclusion before Trent, The Church did think that somehow they were inspired in some way that they did not yet understand, so in the end the Church at Trent decided that they were in fact inspired so the canon as such was finalized. This means that all of the books in what we call the Catholic Bible are indeed inspired. There were a great many books that did not make it into the canon, and some of those books were disputed and thought to be inspired by some of Bishops of the time, but in the end there were rejected because it was determined not to be neither inspired or added to orthodox teaching of the Church Catholic.

This sounds reasonable, while I know you recognize that, as Lutherans, we would not acknowledge that Trent actually did finalize the canon, other than for Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Otherwise, I appreciate your clarification, and I hope I didn’t misrepresent you.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi JonNC: Seems to me that we agree on what we have discussed. No I do not think you have misrepresented me on what I was trying to say and point out. Also I respect your thought and information as well as your beliefs and have no problems with it as I have no interest in trying to up one with you or to demean you in any way or manor. What I am doing is to as per my understanding and or opinion give information for the position I take. I value the thoughts others have that are different from mine. I think that the more we understand each others thinking and beliefs the better all around. While I will not always agree with what others may present, I respect the right to view and voice the opinions made.

The question I have is while I agree that Luther had concerns about the abuses within the Catholic Church, I wonder why he did not or would not stay in the Catholic Church and try to work out the problems he thought needed correction.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC: Seems to me that we agree on what we have discussed. No I do not think you have misrepresented me on what I was trying to say and point out. Also I respect your thought and information as well as your beliefs and have no problems with it as I have no interest in trying to up one with you or to demean you in any way or manor. What I am doing is to as per my understanding and or opinion give information for the position I take. I value the thoughts others have that are different from mine. I think that the more we understand each others thinking and beliefs the better all around. While I will not always agree with what others may present, I respect the right to view and voice the opinions made.

The question I have is while I agree that Luther had concerns about the abuses within the Catholic Church, I wonder why he did not or would not stay in the Catholic Church and try to work out the problems he thought needed correction.

Thanks for your kind words. There have been books and volumes written about that fateful time in the Church. What could Luther have done different? What could the pope and others in the Church done different? My own sense is that what we do now is of greater importance.

Today at Bible study, studying the book of James, our LCMS Lutheran pastor referenced the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and the Catholic Church in a very positive way. Think about that!! The progress we’ve made in the last 50 years since Vat II has been profound, and I pray it continues.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Hi JonNC: You are very welcome!!! I can understand why The Epistle of James could rather be difficult to understand since first of all when it was disputed, my understanding was that first of all it written in excellent Greek and secondly who was this James? was he an apostle or was it pseudonymous, thirdly the lack of attestation to its canonicity before the 3rd century. Now it seems to me that in judging the passage by 1:3,6; 2:1,5; 5:15 James means by faith the free acceptance of God’s saving revelation. By works is meant the obedient implementation of God’s revealed will in every aspect of life. So I think that James is saying or implying is that true faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine. There I see no basic disagreement of James with Paul, for whom faith, ‘works’ through love. James is also saying that faith is to be active along with works. This is how I understand it and I think also the way the Catholic Church understands it.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC: You are very welcome!!! I can understand why The Epistle of James could rather be difficult to understand since first of all when it was disputed, my understanding was that first of all it written in excellent Greek and secondly who was this James? was he an apostle or was it pseudonymous, thirdly the lack of attestation to its canonicity before the 3rd century. Now it seems to me that in judging the passage by 1:3,6; 2:1,5; 5:15 James means by faith the free acceptance of God’s saving revelation. By works is meant the obedient implementation of God’s revealed will in every aspect of life. So I think that James is saying or implying is that true faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine. There I see no basic disagreement of James with Paul, for whom faith, ‘works’ through love. James is also saying that faith is to be active along with works. This is how I understand it and I think also the way the Catholic Church understands it.

Were you sitting in on our Bible study this morning?

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Were you sitting in on our Bible study this morning?

Jon

Hi JonNC: No I was not sitting in on your bible study. That being said, just thought that I’d give my understanding of some little part of James to which I thought you might like. James is not easy to understand in some aspects of what he wrote, as it is not all that clear in all that he says from a Christian viewpoint since it is clear that it is from the Jewish perspective. One thought came to my mind to which I am only guessing at this point but it does seem to me that James was originally written in Aramaic then at some point in time translated into Greek hence the excellent Greek writing. If this is what may have happened it would go a long way in explaining why some disputed it since if the Apostle James did write it, it would have been either in Hebrew or Aramaic and not excellent Greek. not sure if that make any sense to you and I could be very wrong about it.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC: No I was not sitting in on your bible study. That being said, just thought that I’d give my understanding of some little part of James to which I thought you might like. James is not easy to understand in some aspects of what he wrote, as it is not all that clear in all that he says from a Christian viewpoint since it is clear that it is from the Jewish perspective. One thought came to my mind to which I am only guessing at this point but it does seem to me that James was originally written in Aramaic then at some point in time translated into Greek hence the excellent Greek writing. If this is what may have happened it would go a long way in explaining why some disputed it since if the Apostle James did write it, it would have been either in Hebrew or Aramaic and not excellent Greek. not sure if that make any sense to you and I could be very wrong about it.

I haven’t researched all of the circumstances behind it. What’s interesting is our pastor seemed to think that indeed, it was written by St. James, and not a writing of the second century as Luther seemed to think.
You are right, however that it is written from a Jewish standpoint, and there was friction in the days of the Apostles regarding Paul’s rather firm stance that justification was by faith, and not by works, and some Jewish-turned-Christian teachers who taught that works of the law, circumcision, etc., were necessary.
Regardless, it is considered in the canon almost universally.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

I haven’t researched all of the circumstances behind it. What’s interesting is our pastor seemed to think that indeed, it was written by St. James, and not a writing of the second century as Luther seemed to think.
You are right, however that it is written from a Jewish standpoint, and there was friction in the days of the Apostles regarding Paul’s rather firm stance that justification was by faith, and not by works, and some Jewish-turned-Christian teachers who taught that works of the law, circumcision, etc., were necessary.
Regardless, it is considered in the canon almost universally.

Jon

Hi JonNC: Very interesting thought from your pastor. after reading your very recent post to which I am responding to the thought came to my mind about Paul and the justification was by faith. As you may already know Paul’s epistles were not al very easily understood. I wonder if Paul was in his way saying the same thing but in a very different manor from what James was saying. Both I know were Jews so had Jewish thinking but approached the thinking concerning faith from two different view points of thinking. I say this because Paul was writing for the most part to non-Jews while I think James was writing to Jews. It may have this that caused confusion about that James and Paul were saying. Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC: Very interesting thought from your pastor. after reading your very recent post to which I am responding to the thought came to my mind about Paul and the justification was by faith. As you may already know Paul’s epistles were not al very easily understood. I wonder if Paul was in his way saying the same thing but in a very different manor from what James was saying. Both I know were Jews so had Jewish thinking but approached the thinking concerning faith from two different view points of thinking. I say this because Paul was writing for the most part to non-Jews while I think James was writing to Jews. It may have this that caused confusion about that James and Paul were saying. Any thoughts on the matter?

From my perspective, Paul and James converge in this way. While Paul focuses on “by faith and not by works” he also reminds us that faith must be acted out in our daily lives, and that’s the message of James, as well. Paul tells us in Galatians 5:6 that our faith must be a faith that works through love. James says that faith without works is dead. Both are reminding us that there is no such thing as “cheap grace”. We are justified by grace through faith, and that provides us the freedom to do the works He calls us to do.
Our works may not save us, but that doesn’t mean we have the option not to do what He calls us to do for our fellow man here in this life.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

From my perspective, Paul and James converge in this way. While Paul focuses on “by faith and not by works” he also reminds us that faith must be acted out in our daily lives, and that’s the message of James, as well. Paul tells us in Galatians 5:6 that our faith must be a faith that works through love. James says that faith without works is dead. Both are reminding us that there is no such thing as “cheap grace”. We are justified by grace through faith, and that provides us the freedom to do the works He calls us to do.
Our works may not save us, but that doesn’t mean we have the option not to do what He calls us to do for our fellow man here in this life.

Jon

Hi JonNC: I think we are on the same page on this thinking. I say this because as you stated Paul that faith must be a faith that works through love. I would add this from a Descalsed Carmelite Secular viewpoint that Faith first of all is a pure gift from God. it is God through Christ and the Holy Spirit that prompts one to do good works because of faith in God and Christ. Works by and of itself does no good except the reward that comes immediately. faith itself is no good in and of itself if one does not do anything with it. faith is action. Also Jesus said that the works one does is not for ones’ glory but that through it others may see it and thereby give glory to God. Good works by itself will not save anyone and I do not think just having faith will save anyone either. think the two go hand in hand. I would also like to add that it is not how well one does a good work or deed but the love one has for God that in doing the good work it is out of love that it is done. Make any sense to you? Let me know that you think.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC: I think we are on the same page on this thinking. I say this because as you stated Paul that faith must be a faith that works through love. I would add this from a Descalsed Carmelite Secular viewpoint that Faith first of all is a pure gift from God. it is God through Christ and the Holy Spirit that prompts one to do good works because of faith in God and Christ. Works by and of itself does no good except the reward that comes immediately. faith itself is no good in and of itself if one does not do anything with it. faith is action. Also Jesus said that the works one does is not for ones’ glory but that through it others may see it and thereby give glory to God. Good works by itself will not save anyone and I do not think just having faith will save anyone either. think the two go hand in hand. I would also like to add that it is not how well one does a good work or deed but the love one has for God that in doing the good work it is out of love that it is done. Make any sense to you? Let me know that you think.

No argument at all.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

Great quote, James.

I know Mr. Sungenis, as an apologist, doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church, but his opinion does seem to fit what I have understood Catholic practice to be on the matter.

Jon

This quote came about in a very similar discussion, and the person I was interacting with sought out Mr. Sungenis to refute the very argument we’re both making here about canon liberty during the 16th century. Obviously, the answer that was given by Mr. Sungenis was not the answer this person wanted to hear.