But like I have stated, I do not believe the above canon is adequate enough to debunk papal primacy or jurisdiction. As I once stated, if canon 6 debunks papal jurisdiction, then why do there exists countless of cases bishops from far areas taking grave matters to Rome? If ALL are confined to their local jurisdiction?
hello-- i really appreciate the links-- every one thinks their commentary is “infallable”Cardinal Cajetan, just before the Council of Trent: Edited. Jon beat me to it!
I’m not sure your example is a good fit for this conversation. The Divinity of Christ was clearly settled in Scripture - no Catholic (much less, a highly respected, learned Cardinal like a Cajetan!) would openly dispute His divinity at a council. The mere fact that there was an open debate regarding the canon at Trent proves that it was not official throughout the church.
So then, no two Popes would ever disagree on matters of faith and morals, since both would be “correctly” interpreting scripture? I get it. When Pope Boniface VIII said, “Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff,” what he really meant was, “Separated Churches and communities… have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.” -Unitatis Redintegratio
A simple Google search will show that Councils and Popes have often contradicted each other.
Not at all - I am a worm. What I am saying is that Lutherans do not have such a heavy need to define a canon in the same way that Catholics and Protestants do. As Pietro noted, it was Rome that felt the need to define a canon. Protestant Reformed Christians (particularly in America) sought to do away with anything deemed “Papist” in response to Trent’s reforms, and some removed the DC altogether. Lutherans take a different stance. Again, I’m going to have to direct you to the link I provided (and re-posted in post #30): forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10877204&postcount=30
You’re barking up the wrong tree here, Pietro. We do happen to be quite fond of that ESV translation and most of our pastors do not consider the DC to be Scripture, but again, I must stress that the Lutheran Confessions do not define a canon. In fact, Luther’s Bible was bigger than the one approved by Catholics at Trent (Special thanks to our friends in the next thread over for the link!): latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html.
The LCMS also prints out a very nice hardcover version of this: cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx The DCs are making a bit of a comeback in the LCMS, and in Lutheranism in general.
Regardless of how one views the man, it seems apparent that he had the highest possible regard for Scripture. How exactly did Luther desecrate the Bible? Much less, a Bible that did not yet exist?
I’m not sure where I’ve said that. I’ve noted repeatedly that we Lutherans are terribly bothered by schism and error within His church. From our view, the errors of various protestant groups are just as bothersome as those originating in Rome. Once again, blaming Luther for all the problems in the various protestant churches is giving far too much credit to a humble German monk.
The original question asked whether Catholics in Luther’s time found consensus regarding a canon. Contributions of the prominent doctors of the church seem like logical sources for this discussion. Who would you have us cite?
Why should we? We do not follow the man (1 Cor. 3:4). Rather, we follow what we believe is the teaching of the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church as defined in Holy Scripture and rightly reflected in the Lutheran Confessions.
Exactly. 100% agreement is not the point.
Good. Then the approach Lutherans take toward the DC’s is satisfactory, as it isn’t in 100% agreement with the way Catholics view them. We see them as disputed in the early Church, and our trust in the early Church is such that we view them differently than the universally attested books. Do they belong in the Bible? Sure. Should Christians read them? Absolutely. Use them liturgically? In hymnody? Yep.
It’s satisfactory for Lutherans
This topic intrigues me. It’d be worth a thread in its own right.
Should not the Council of Trent agree with the early Church?It’s satisfactory for Lutherans
It’s an authority Issue, Jon that was my point.
You trust the early Church not the Council of Trent and that’ most obvious by the agreement in the LCMS posters
It’s already been noted. Not every Catholic agreed but they remained Catholic and submitted to the Authority of the Church for they recognized that Authority.
Well Jon, how or where do you thing Trent does not agree with the Early Church?
Probably Cajetan, too, though I don’t know if he was alive by then. Luther, OTOH, was dead by Trent, and cannot be held accountable to it.
Mary seemed to think there was a difference, i suspect related to a dogmatic declaration of the canon of scripture.
so not true! You are far from an expert on the history of the Bible and the Catholic Church.
I won’t argue with that assessment. But I also cannot argue with historical facts; the Lutheran Confessions did not define a canon, and the Roman Catholic church did not officially codify one until Trent.
I visited the LCMS for 3 years in Study of the Bible, Basics of Lutheran Faith classes at the invitation of my LCMS Pastor friend to learn more about Lutheranism. (LCMS Lutheranism)
No it did not! Why are Protestants so adamant about Trent? Trent did NOT codify anything. Read ALL the canons. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm what had been discussed and settled centuries at previous councils.
First, Mary, none of us have claimed expertise. And it seems appropriate, does it not, that we would view things through Lutheran glasses, just as you view things through the lens of your Catechism. Frankly, that’s what I expect, value, and welcome.
Again, Mary, where have we claimed expertise? And why compare us to SDA?
Just like you catechize with the CCC. Idon’t understand the nature of your complaint. Have I been disrespectful in some way?
Meaning?
See, I thought that was what Catholics want of us - to study our shared history. It seems like the perfect mutual starting point. Other than Anglicans, what other western non-Catholic groups are willing to dialogue with you on the grounds of Tradition?
