S
- Status
T
Tomyris
Guest
You still did not answer my question.
But he quoted the last several popes. Do they override your interpretation of the CC?
S
steve_b
Guest
Do you not remember, it was you who called it the “Reformed camp”
(emphasis mine)
**
I was merely using your phrasing thinking that was ok.
**
T
Tomyris
Guest
I am a lunatic.
S
steve_b
Guest
JPII and Benedict XVI (then Card Ratzinger) wrote the CCC. And I quoted from the latest version. If something has changed then the CCC should have been changed to reflect the change…
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
Re: #'s 816, 837
S
steve_b
Guest
-]/-]
Luther is the one, and the main thrust of the thread. He was the one who removed 7 OT books from the canon. And all Protestants regardless of stripe, followed him.
The topic should NOT be changed.
Luther is the one, and the main thrust of the thread. He was the one who removed 7 OT books from the canon. And all Protestants regardless of stripe, followed him.
Steve, you can say that, but do you have proof? Where does Calvin say, “Luther (and Cajetan and others) was right about the canon.”? You see, they didn’t follow him on a whole lot of issues, like Baptism, Confession/Holy Absolution, the Real Presence, iconography, and many more. How do you know that they didn’t come to their conclusions about the canon on their own, irrespective of Luther? I am sure Cajetan did not “follow Luther” on the canon, but held his own opinions, looking back on the history of the Church.
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
The topic is
**Re: Luther removed no books - he segregated them **
NOT
**
-]Re: Luther has been dead for almost 500 years: enough already/-]
**
Luther removed 7 books. And all Protestants regardless of stripe followed him down to this day
S
steve_b
Guest
The canon was decreed ( Decree ) by Damasus I, to be 73 books, all named, in 382. It’s been that way ever since.
You ask the wrong questions. You should be asking
- Where did Luther get off removing 7 books from the canon?
- Where did Calvin get off removing the same 7 books as Luther
- And while you’re at it, ask the same questions for the Baptists, the Methodists, the Anglicans, and all the 10’s of thousands of divisions of groups and sects down to our day.
Not everyone in a revolt runs lock step.
J:
Why do you keep bringing up Cajetan? Did Cajetan remove books from scripture? NO! Did he revolt from the Church? NO!
T
Tomyris
Guest
Better check that thread title again. ‘Protestants and the Bible’.
And having the same list does not mean we followed him.
My old pastor described the difference between the Lutherans and the Reformed, simplified, is if you have a dresser with two drawers. The Lutherans took one drawer out and removed everything in the drawer that was unacceptable. The Reformed took their drawer, dumped everything out on the floor, and then put back in the drawer everything that was acceptable. The principal complaint of the Reformed against Luther was that he was too Catholic: he did not go far enough.
Anyone who maintains that the Reformed followed Luther is simply demonstrating a lack of understanding of the situation.
Bu these are not the questions of the thread. You’ve made a claim, Steve. I just want to know your source.
Your three questions, though are legitimate. Luther, and I suspect Calvin later, acted on the same Catholic liberty that anyone could and often did prior to Trent.
Or, maybe they aren’t the same “revolt”.
But he defines, in his writing, a very similar view of the canon.
Jon
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The Catechism was not authored by Pope Saint John Paul II…it was promulgated by him. There is an important distinction. Pope Saint John named the committee of Cardinals, bishops and theologians who created it. If you wish to know, the priest who was very much responsible in the drafting became a Cardinal just over 10 years after the Catechism’s promulgation
The points here in question are readily addressed by a higher authority than the Catechism…namely, the relevant Decree of the Ecumenical Council – which was the source document for the part of the catechism you are quoting. The following is the relevant passage, with highlights and underlining to highlight the points of particular interest to Tomyris.
*3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. [As my one editorial insertion: Blessed Paul VI and the Council Fathers have just taught in this statement that one can attain Heaven through (and not in spite of) these liturgical actions occurring in the non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities.]
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.*
As Pope Saint John Paul II articulated well and in reflecting the decree of Vatican II: We all belong to Christ.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Thank you.
I found myself muttering the word “Feeneyite” and had to go and look it up, it being one of those words encountered somewhere long ago that popped up unexpectedly, so I searched for it on internet. I’m thinking the above may have been written with a refutation of Feeneyism in mind, which, I think, is officially heretical. Some posters may do well to review these concerns, IMHO. But what do I know. That may be way out of line. Probably. Sorry if it is.
Someone, some posts ago, thought I should be indignant that my ‘ecclesiatical community’ is regarded as deficient. Hey, we KNOW that. ‘Always reformed, always reforming’ until we achieve that measure Paul speaks of in Ephesians. We aren’t there. We ache over our deficiencies and pray God straightens us. I’m throwing that in here because I finally thought of a response, like the questioner will ever read it or know I thought of his question. Better to eat scraps on the floor from the table of the Lord like a dog than sit at the table and refuse to eat.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Ok. So here is a description of the decree “Decretum Gelasiasum” from this site:
ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml
The Decretum Gelasianum
The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of the ‘apocrypha’ and other writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the New Testament. Parts 1, 3, and 4 are not relevant to the canon, but a complete Latin edition and a complete English translation are available. The authors sources are these:
ntcanon.org/references.shtml#Metzger
ntcanon.org/references.shtml#Schneemelcher
And here is another reference to the document: books.google.com/books?id=0HKOJt33wLYC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false
From this work (which is titled: The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon):
The Damasine documents are not dated, nor is the year or number of the Council given. Conjecture has assigned the document to a known Roman council in 382. Very little is really known about this synod. No official acts have been preserved, and the only surviving conciliar may be this Damasine Decree, for which there is no known reference until the end of the eight or beginning of the ninth century. The three brief contemporary references do not refer to any decree. Jerome mentioned the synod twice, but only in passing…
…if the Damasine Decree were genuine, then it would represent the earliest known official catalogue of canonized books in the Western Church. Yet the work is not mentioned in any independent document before the yr 840…
Though the New Advent encyclopedia is a little more favorable to its legitimacy, it lacks much verification. newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
I am not claiming to know the answer to this, but only express the fact that the Council of Rome (or rather it’s supposed Damascus decree) is definitely subject to speculation.
Here is the biography of St Jerome from the New Advent encyclopedia:
A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testamentfrom the Hebrew (382-390). During this period theexegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of theFour Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384, the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of the Lat(name removed by moderator)salter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla"of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of theOld Testament according to the Greek of theSeptuagint. In 382-383 “Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi” and “De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium”. In 387-388, commentaries on theEpistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes.So this account attributes the gospels and the Pauline epistle to Jerome translation. It goes on to describe his work on the OT and commentaries. It does, however, add this also:
… in 398, revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament
, and The Vulgate is not so much a “bible” as it is a translation. I guess this is considered so, because we don’t have a codex called “the Vulgate” so to speak. But it was the official translation of the Sacred Scriptures.
I stand by this, as much as I would like to believe the Damasine Decree was legitimately from him, and the 382 council. I just don’t understand why St Jerome would not accept the Deuteros after such a supposed decree. He respected St Damasus very much!
Hope this is a good start to our study.
Not at all! God willing, we will work it out.
T
Tomyris
Guest
You, sir are a scholar and a gentleman.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Thank you, but I don’t think I’m near a scholar! I’m trying to learn about the Scriptures during this formation period. I love this time! The Papacy of Pope St. Damasus and his relationship with St Athanasius and St Jerome!
I wish I could find something I read that seemed to say that Pope St Damasus had St Athanasius brought out of his 5th exile in 366, and the following year, Athanasius wrote his famous Easter letter with the Canon of the NT.
However, Eusebius actually has the oldest NT known! A perfect list.
The supposed Damasus list would be the oldest official, entire Old and New Testament. The records just aren’t completely reliable. Nevertheless, we have Carthage, shortly after, with St. Augustine providing better records from the council. Still, Augustine seemed to regard the Canon as already closed, though not referencing the Synod of Rome (decree of Damasus).
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I have one very specific question: Why am I not seeing any reference, by the Catholics, to PCPCU?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Hey steve, sorry I indented that sentence, which was suppose to be quoted (by me, which I was trying to support).
I look forward to anything you can provide. I do feel my search is wanting. And I don’t know if it’s cuz these topics aren’t easily answered or I am just not finding good sources.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I guess cuz it’s off topic a little… like my posts about the Synod of Rome and it’s decree of a canon.
This was the OP:
Isn’t free interpretation of Sacred Scripture without consulting proper ecclesiastical authority one of the first errors of the protestant “reformers”? It seems as though they supported all kinds of anarchy of that sort.
- Status