Protestants and the Bible?

[Duane1966]

From New Advent:

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. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception,** uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament.* Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom…In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod.*

 

[rcwitness]

WHEN the canon OT & NT books was decreed by Damasus THEN the bible was written.

The Vulgate, a Latin translation, was translated from both the OT Greek texts (the Septuigint) and the NT Greek texts into Latin by Jerome.

The documents we have of the Council of Rome is from a later council. I tend to see it as possible, but it doesn’t make sense that Jerome would not have accepted the deuteros immediately after the Council of 382.

He was commissioned to translate some of the NT. Then after Damasus’ papacy, he was pushed out of Rome and at the request of friends, he began the OT.

The Vulgate is not so much a “bible” as it is a translation.

I think it’s possible that the Council of Rome in 382 raised the issue of the canon. But the records aren’t so reliable.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

From whom? Perhaps the papal legate to Germany? Who was that?

Oh, yes. Dear Cardinal Contarini, who shared Luther’s views on the canon.

Did Contarini leave the Church and call its pope the Antichrist?

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
ELCA doctrine? There didn’t use to be any such thing as ELCA doctrine, (or LCMS doctrine, etc). There was just Lutheran doctrine.

I’ve known LOTS of Catholics who were not in communion with the (singular) Magisterium’s doctrine. Those people might make my life miserable, but I could always figure out what was the Magisterium’s doctrine. I may or may not choose to follow it, but I could always identify it - singular pronoun.

Could you say that also with PNCC and Old Catholics? IOW, the analogy is the same. If Catholic bishops take on a differing view of a doctrine, it is the same as a Lutheran group doing the same.

Jon

The Magisterium refers to validly ordained bishops currently in union with the pope. Whether some or all the PNCC, other Old Catholics, and other kinds of Christian communions have apostolic succession and valid ordinations is an important issue, but does not necessarily make them “Catholic bishops” in terms of participation in the Magisterium. They are not. Part of the college of bishops - group of men currently united to each other, and the Pope? No.

I would consider the “Old Catholics”, including PNCC, to be Protestants who broke off a few centuries after most others, and who accept RC Tradition up to a later date than the others. There is a continuum. Some fundamentalist types say the Catholic Church “went off the tracks” long before Constantine. Others say beginning in the 4th century; Lutherans put the “jump-the-tracks” date later; Anglicans later still; and Old Catholics saying all was valid into the 1800s. Lutherans, Anglicans, and others vary, accepting some developments but not others, just as some Old Catholics happen to agree with some parts of Vatican II. But they are Protestant even if they include bishops the Catholic Church considers validly ordained.

Individual Lutheran bishops may, or may not, be valid in the sacramental sense. At any given moment, groups of them may define doctrines even in different ways - different ways between groups, or different ways between centuries. The “group” is just the sum of the individuals who show up at that moment. There is no single template other than Scripture and Tradition - no living template. There is no one who can say “that doctrinal interpretation, or that bishop-doctrine-interpreter, is unLutheran”. All they can do is form another Lutheran group, with no more, no less, claim to be officially Lutheran.

So your metaphor falls. There is a single official Catholicism. I didn’t prove the Magisterium is good, only that it is identifiable, and single.

 

[Michael68]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post
ELCA doctrine? There didn’t use to be any such thing as ELCA doctrine, (or LCMS doctrine, etc). There was just Lutheran doctrine.

I’ve known LOTS of Catholics who were not in communion with the (singular) Magisterium’s doctrine. Those people might make my life miserable, but I could always figure out what was the Magisterium’s doctrine. I may or may not choose to follow it, but I could always identify it - singular pronoun.

The Magisterium refers to validly ordained bishops currently in union with the pope. Whether some or all the PNCC, other Old Catholics, and other kinds of Christian communions have apostolic succession and valid ordinations is an important issue, but does not necessarily make them “Catholic bishops” in terms of participation in the Magisterium. They are not. Part of the college of bishops - group of men currently united to each other, and the Pope? No.

I would consider the “Old Catholics”, including PNCC, to be Protestants who broke off a few centuries after most others, and who accept RC Tradition up to a later date than the others. There is a continuum. Some fundamentalist types say the Catholic Church “went off the tracks” long before Constantine. Others say beginning in the 4th century; Lutherans later; Anglicans later still; and Old Catholics saying all was valid into the 1800s.

Individual Lutheran bishops may, or may not, be valid in the sacramental sense. At any given moment, groups of them may define doctrines even in different ways - different ways between groups, or different ways between centuries. The “group” is just the sum of the individuals who show up at that moment. There is no single template other than Scripture and Tradition - no living template. There is no one who can say “that doctrinal interpretation, or that bishop-doctrine-interpreter, is unLutheran”. All they can do is form another Lutheran group, with no more, no less, claim to be officially Lutheran.

So your metaphor falls. There is a single official Catholicism. I didn’t prove the Magisterium is good, only that it is identifiable, and single.

I feel the Magesterium is good and keeps us out of the Bible gymnastics that others do

 

[steve_b]

The documents we have of the Council of Rome is from a later council. I tend to see it as possible, but it doesn’t make sense that Jerome would not have accepted the deuteros immediately after the Council of 382.

He was commissioned to translate some of the NT. Then after Damasus’ papacy, he was pushed out of Rome and at the request of friends, he began the OT.

The Vulgate is not so much a “bible” as it is a translation.

I think it’s possible that the Council of Rome in 382 raised the issue of the canon. But the records aren’t so reliable.

Please quote your source properly referenced for all that

 

[JonNC]

I certainly didn’t mean to be the cause of an argument between two good Catholics.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but their view of what is meant by “canonical” is different the way we understand or argue about it.

So I would say citing the Orthodox is not quite correct and a misnomer, unless you cite what they mean by “Canonical”…hence their different canon on some aspects of the Orthodoxy.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397). This of course included the Carthaginian Biblical canon, which is thus TECHNICALLY binding on the modern Eastern Orthodox Church. Yet, in terms of practice, the Antiochian (and thus Byzantine) parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to use pre-Carthaginian books in their local canons …and for the simple reason that these books (e.g. 3 & 4 Maccabees or the apocryphal Esdras, etc.) were always read in the church of Antioch. The fact that the council of Carthage excluded these books (because they contain some problematic material) was ignored. And it’s because of this neglect of the Carthaginian canon (as authorized by both Trullo and Nicaea II) that modern Eastern Orthodoxy (coming out of the Antiochian Liturgical tradition) often include such books in their published canons today. Yet, technically, they SHOULD consider themselves bound by Trullo’s and Nicaea II’s authorization of Carthage.

In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.

Actually, I think this is similar to what Cardinal Cajetan says about the DC books, that they are canonical in the sense that they are used liturgically. And that was my point. DC books have been used liturgically by Lutherans and Anglicans all along, both in the lectionary and in hymnody.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;14008756]Jon.

• Re: authority, Luther obviously thought he had the authority to do what he did. He was of course wrong.

Lutherans by using Luther’s canon, + apocrypha, (duly identified as apocrypha in their bible) did/does by de facto, declare a 66 book canon.

And yet, with no feeling of being compelled, he has them translated and included in his 74 book Die Bibel.

But let’s not ignore Luther’s quote to remove all doubt

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

Luther’s quote is clear. In his mind, the apocrypha isn’t scripture…ergo NOT canonical

In his mind, IOW, in his opinion, an opinion shared by others, yet not binding on anyone, because he had no authority to bind anyone to it.

Pardon me for asking, but I’m curious, how is moving from one Protestant sect to another, fixing anything?

See the PM I sent to you.

that comment ignores and excuses error. Here are the facts. Before Luther was even born, the canon was fixed by Florence, an ecumenical council. The canon was the same since 382. Meaning the canon was the same for 1140 years. And Luther knew that. Don’t take my word for it, here are Luther’s own words #[19 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12347438&postcount=19) , refer to the last comment on that post

And the Catholics you elude to…so did they know where the scriptures came from. And those Catholics you eluded to? Did they change the canon? NO!. and THAT’S the point isn’t it? . Luther on his own, DID change the canon.

If you take this position, you then have to accept that the canon is now 66 books. Many Catholics thought that the canon did not include the DC books. They right about it. They argue the point at Trent.

That argument presumes there is some separate but equal clause somewhere in God’s ledger, equalizing all non Catholic religious groups, with the Catholic Church that God Himself, established…

There is but one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, currently wounded by division and schism, but there is only one, of which we are all members.

Just for the record , There’s no chance of you convincing me of that idea.

I know, Steve. I think it safe to say that, on this point, we won’t convince each other.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Please quote your source properly referenced for all that

… for now I’ll share this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1009489

And I’ll add some some sources as soon as possible

 

[steve_b]

And yet, with no feeling of being compelled, he has them translated and included in his 74 book Die Bibel.

His own quote identifies those 7 books that he removed. They are not equal to scripture, so he removed them. He owns that. So do all those who followed him by removing those same 7 books as well…
J:

In his mind, IOW, in his opinion, an opinion shared by others, yet not binding on anyone, because he had no authority to bind anyone to it.

Yes he had no authority. But as the father of Protestantism, by THEIR actions, following his lead, agreeing to remove those 7 books also, Protestants de facto showed they gave Luther authority to eliminate those same 7 books from THEIR bibles also
J:

See the PM I sent to you.

what am I looking for in that PM?
-J:

If you take this position, you then have to accept that the canon is now 66 books. Many Catholics thought that the canon did not include the DC books. They right about it. They argue the point at Trent.

Between you and I, I’ve printed the texts from Florence and Trent many times. Just because “some” people continued to argue at Trent, did it change Trent? No. Did it change the canon? No. The outcome of Florence was clear, as was the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage? The canon has not changed since 382.
J:

There is but one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, currently wounded by division and schism, but there is only one, -]of which we are all members. /-]

Unless one is fully incorporated into the Catholic Church they are OUTSIDE the Catholic Church. IOW they aren’t Catholic either
J:

I know, Steve. I think it safe to say that, on this point, we won’t convince each other.

Jon

It sure looks that way

 

[Tomyris]

Unless one is fully incorporated into the Catholic Church they are OUTSIDE the Catholic Church. IOW they aren’t Catholic either

This does not sound right.

I seem to recall Catholic teaching that Protestants are “imperfectly connected to the Catholic Church.” Not what you posted. Please verify from the Catechism that what you said is correct.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;14016750]His own quote identifies those 7 books that he removed. They are not equal to scripture, so he removed them. He owns that. So do all those who followed him by removing those same 7 books as well…

Of course he owns his opinion. And those who agree with him own theirs, too.

Yes he had no authority. But as the father of Protestantism, by THEIR actions, following his lead, agreeing to remove those 7 books also, Protestants de facto showed they gave Luther authority to eliminate those same 7 books from THEIR bibles also

Steve, they aren’t lemmings. They make their own choices. Most of them give Luther no second thought about Luther.

Between you and I, I’ve printed the texts from Florence and Trent many times. Just because “some” people continued to argue at Trent, did it change Trent? No. Did it change the canon? No. The outcome of Florence was clear, as was the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage? The canon has not changed since 382.

Exactly. They were permitted to argue and dispute the canon. Luther did no different, even though he was no longer obliged to include the DC books

It sure looks that way

But we can still be friends.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Yes he had no authority. But as the father of Protestantism, by THEIR actions, following his lead, agreeing to remove those 7 books also, Protestants de facto showed they gave Luther authority to eliminate those same 7 books from THEIR bibles also

The Reformed in no way regard him as the ‘father of Protestantism’. The only thing I’ve ever heard anyone in the Reformed camp discuss about him was that he was ‘the boar in the Lord’s vineyard’ because of the language he used.

Calvin has extensive writings on the canon and why what is in it should be in it. He most certainly did NOT say “Fr. Luther said it, so it must be so”.

Catholics seem to think we regard Luther as some kind of prophet or something whose writings and thoughts are not to be questioned. Nope. Nope. Nope. I have heard far more about Luther on CAF than I ever have elsewhere, and that mainly in discussions started by Catholics about Luther. What is this weird fixation with him, anyway, that people (Catholics_ keep bringing him up over and over again? I don’t recall a thread started by Lutherans on Luther, but plenty of threads attacking him started by Catholics.

He has been dead for almost 500 years. Why don’t we move on from him?

 

[steve_b]

… for now I’ll share this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1009489

And I’ll add some some sources as soon as possible

Why didn’t anybody ask “Patrick” for his references?

 

[rcwitness]

Why didn’t anybody ask “Patrick” for his references?

Go for it… I did some research myself and couldn’t find anything which contradicted what he said. I didn’t get too deep, but tried to look into with the time I had.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The Reformed in no way regard him as the ‘father of Protestantism’. The only thing I’ve ever heard anyone in the Reformed camp discuss about him was that he was ‘the boar in the Lord’s vineyard’ because of the language he used.

Calvin has extensive writings on the canon and why what is in it should be in it. He most certainly did NOT say “Fr. Luther said it, so it must be so”.

Catholics seem to think we regard Luther as some kind of prophet or something whose writings and thoughts are not to be questioned. Nope. Nope. Nope. I have heard far more about Luther on CAF than I ever have elsewhere, and that mainly in discussions started by Catholics about Luther. What is this weird fixation with him, anyway, that people (Catholics_ keep bringing him up over and over again? I don’t recall a thread started by Lutherans on Luther, but plenty of threads attacking him started by Catholics.

He has been dead for almost 500 years. Why don’t we move on from him?

He basically triggered divisions in the Church even worse than they already were? The question is: Why shoud we move on from him?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I seem to recall Catholic teaching that Protestants are “imperfectly connected to the Catholic Church.” Not what you posted. Please verify from the Catechism that what you said is correct.

Your memory is correct.

I would begin with the opening of Ut Unum Sint by Pope Saint John Paul II, which places the state of impaired communion in its proper perspective:
The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. These brothers and sisters of ours, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, are the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel.
And, of course…
42. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past.

 

[commenter]

The Reformed in no way regard him as the ‘father of Protestantism’. The only thing I’ve ever heard anyone in the Reformed camp discuss about him was that he was ‘the boar in the Lord’s vineyard’ because of the language he used.

Calvin has extensive writings on the canon and why what is in it should be in it. He most certainly did NOT say “Fr. Luther said it, so it must be so”.

Catholics seem to think we regard Luther as some kind of prophet or something whose writings and thoughts are not to be questioned. Nope. Nope. Nope. I have heard far more about Luther on CAF than I ever have elsewhere, and that mainly in discussions started by Catholics about Luther. What is this weird fixation with him, anyway, that people (Catholics_ keep bringing him up over and over again? I don’t recall a thread started by Lutherans on Luther, but plenty of threads attacking him started by Catholics.

He has been dead for almost 500 years. Why don’t we move on from him?

I agree. There is some value in exploring the controversies of the 16th century, and the role played by Luther. But many good and bad developments were going on in the Church before him, during his time and since. I think there are 4 or 5 Catholic fixated posters who have repeatedly started or joined threads in which they recycle, over and over, arguments against Luther. When you throw everything but the kitchen sink against an opponent, people don’t hear anything you have to say. Much worse, they won’t hear anything** I** have to say, which is a tragedy. My suggestion is simply not to respond to most threads about Luther.

Some Lutherans on this forum know more about Luther than I know my wife. JonNC knows more about Luther’s horse than I know about her (the word “her” referring to “horse”, not “wife”).

Lutherans in 2016 are far more influenced by the developments of the past 50 years than by Luther. Can a communion that respects Tradition retain orthodoxy without the Magisterium in an anti-Christian Western culture? How, in 2016, would they measure their own orthodoxy, or lack thereof?

Now there’s raw material for a good thread.

 

[JonNC]

I agree. There is some value in exploring the controversies of the 16th century, and the role played by Luther. But many good and bad developments were going on in the Church before him, during his time and since. I think there are 4 or 5 Catholic fixated posters who have repeatedly started or joined threads in which they recycle, over and over, arguments against Luther. When you throw everything but the kitchen sink against an opponent, people don’t hear anything you have to say. Much worse, they won’t hear anything** I** have to say, which is a tragedy. My suggestion is simply not to respond to most threads about Luther.

Some Lutherans on this forum know more about Luther than I know my wife. JonNC knows more about Luther’s horse than I know about her (the word “her” referring to “horse”, not “wife”).

Lutherans in 2016 are far more influenced by the developments of the past 50 years than by Luther. Can a communion that respects Tradition retain orthodoxy without the Magisterium in an anti-Christian Western culture? How, in 2016, would they measure their own orthodoxy, or lack thereof?

Now there’s raw material for a good thread.

Done