Protestants and the Bible?

[rcwitness]

Maybe this could be helpful to understand the Catholic aproach to interpreting Scripture: From the Catechism

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

1. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
2. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82*By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The OP is somewhere in the 2nd of three criteria.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I guess cuz it’s off topic a little…

Actually far from being off-topic, PCPCU should be utterly central to a sub-forum entitled Non Catholic Religions – above all any thread which includes the word “Protestant” in its title, given the portfolio of PCPCU and the derivative authority it and its Cardinal President holds.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

The motivation expressed in UR exceeded the very sad case of the American, Father Leonard Feeney.

It was, rather, based on the discernment of the world’s Catholic bishops who had been brought together in council by Pope Saint John XXIII that the ecumenical movement involved a divine imperative that, shall we say, had not been appreciated in preceding generations.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Actually, if you include Huss, he was 100 years before Luther.

If you include Ockham, whose teachings Luther was taught as Catholic at Erfurt, was 200 years before Luther

If you investigate, you will find significant differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism in hermeneutics and soteriology.

You’re assuming Calvin adopted Luther’s opinion of the canon. Do you have evidence that Calvin says so? What about Cajetan, does he site Luther in his similar view of the canon?

Broke from the Catholic Church: indeed. It is so often implied here that Calvin from Luther.

Jon

Oh, JonNC…now, you must not forget to evoke the Waldensians. I had occasion to do a bit of work concerning them at one point some time back, during the years of my engagement in dialogue. Their tremendous suffering demands remembrance by Church historians

And, of course, one must not forget John Wycliffe

The evocation of Jan Hus gives me the welcomed occasion of quoting the remarks of Pope Saint John Paul II to an international symposium on Jan Hus in December 1999

*Distinguished Members of the Government
Dear Cardinal and Brother Bishops
Distinguished Scholars
Ladies and Gentlemen

1. It gives me great pleasure to greet you on the occasion of your Symposium on John Hus, which has been another important step towards a deeper understanding of the life and work of the renowned Bohemian preacher, one of the most famous of the many great scholars to come from the University of Prague. Hus is a memorable figure for many reasons. But it is particularly his moral courage in the face of adversity and death that has made him a figure of special significance to the Czech people, who have themselves suffered much through the centuries. I am particularly grateful to all of you who have contributed to the work of the ecumenical Commission “Husovská”, established some years ago by Cardinal Miloslav Vlk in order to identify more precisely the place that Jan Hus occupies among those who sought a reform of the Church
2. It is significant that scholars not only from the Czech Republic but also from neighbouring countries have taken part in this Symposium. No less significant is the fact that, despite the tensions that have marred relations between Czech Christians in the past, scholars from different Confessions have come together to share their knowledge. Now that you have brought together the best and latest scholarly work on Jan Hus and the events in which he was involved, the next step will be to publish the results of the Symposium, so that as many people as possible will have an insight not only into a remarkable man but also into an important and complex period of Christian and European history

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people. It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. /…/

1. Scholarly endeavours to reach a more profound and complete grasp of historical truth are crucial to this cause. Faith has nothing to fear from the work of historical research, for, in the final analysis, research too is directed towards the truth which has in God its source. Therefore, I give thanks to our Father in Heaven for your work as it reaches its end, just as I was keen to encourage you as you began.

The writing of history is sometimes beset by ideological, political or economic pressures, so that the truth is obscured and history itself becomes a prisoner of the powerful. Genuinely scientific study is our best defence against such pressures and the distortions they can bring. It is true that it is very difficult to attain an absolutely objective account of history, since personal convictions, values and experiences inevitably impinge upon historical study. Yet this does not mean that we cannot offer an account of history which is in a very real sense impartial and therefore true and liberating. Your own work is a proof that this is possible.

1. The truth can also prove uncomfortable when it asks us to abandon long-held prejudices and stereotypes. This is as true of Churches, ecclesial communities and religions as it is of nations and individuals. Yet the truth which sets us free from error is also the truth which sets us free for love; and it is Christian love which has been the horizon of what your Commission has sought to do. Your work means that a figure like Jan Hus, who has been such a point of contention in the past, has now become a subject of dialogue, of comparison and shared investigation /…/
2. It is clear, then, that your work is an important service not only to the historical figure of Jan Hus but also to Christians and European society more generally. This is because, in the end, it is a service to the truth about man; and it is this truth above all which the human family needs to recover at the dawn of the Third Millennium of the Christian era /…/*
   I confess these words have a special echo in this present moment…in view of statements which the Holy See will be making in light of a pending anniversary in the near future

 

[commenter]

The motivation expressed in UR exceeded the very sad case of the American, Father Leonard Feeney.

It was, rather, based on the discernment of the world’s Catholic bishops who had been brought together in council by Pope Saint John XXIII that the ecumenical movement involved a divine imperative that, shall we say, had not been appreciated in preceding generations.

BTW, Fr. Leonard Feeney was a Boston priest, who was excommunicated in 1953, before Vatican II, under Pope Pius XII. He was reconciled to the Church in 1972 before he died, but never exercised further ministry in the Church. RIP

 

[rcwitness]

Actually far from being off-topic, PCPCU should be utterly central to a sub-forum entitled Non Catholic Religions – above all any thread which includes the word “Protestant” in its title, given the portfolio of PCPCU and the derivative authority it and its Cardinal President holds.

… maybe this thread had been combined with several…?

Luther Has Been Dead…
We All Belong to Christ
Luther Removed No Books…
Protestants and the Bible

 

[steve_b]

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.

Re: your comment “The following is the relevant passage, with highlights and underlining to highlight the points of particular interest to Tomyris.”

I think the relevant passage with highlights that I was posting for Tomyris is THIS

St JPII continues

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

THOSE are the points I made to Tomyris in post #290

When JPII said** “ALL should be fully incorporated” **is he merely making what Jesus prayed for a suggestion, or is that a command from God? John 17:20-23

 

[steve_b]

Bu these are not the questions of the thread. You’ve made a claim, Steve. I just want to know your source.

I’ve given these sources many many times already.

Decree of pope Damasus I council of Rome 382 closing the canon
The canon (the written tradition) was difinitively decreed by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome, 382 a.d. here is that decree. rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html . Count the books. It’s 73. The same canon OT and NT we have today.

** When you see an OT book name above that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/
For example “Osee” = Hosea

Florence was an ecumenical council.

The canon of 382 (Decree of Damasus I, 73 books) was accepted and named by book, and validated

(emphasis mine)

“It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.”

Session 11 (1442)
J:

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.

Their was no “liberty” adding or subtracting books from the canon once the canon was decreed by Damasus

 

[rcwitness]

Decree of pope Damasus I council of Rome 382 closing the canon
The canon (the written tradition) was difinitively decreed by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome, 382 a.d.

…The canon of 382 (Decree of Damasus I, 73 books) was accepted and named by book, and validated

…Their was no “liberty” adding or subtracting books from the canon once the canon was decreed by Damasus

Did you get a chance to read my reply to your request?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14021711&postcount=310

 

[JonNC]

I’ve given these sources many many times already.

Decree of pope Damasus I council of Rome 382 closing the canon
The canon (the written tradition) was difinitively decreed by Pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome, 382 a.d. here is that decree. rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html . Count the books. It’s 73. The same canon OT and NT we have today.

** When you see an OT book name above that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/
For example “Osee” = Hosea

Florence was an ecumenical council.

The canon of 382 (Decree of Damasus I, 73 books) was accepted and named by book, and validated

(emphasis mine)

“It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.”

Session 11 (1442)

Their was no “liberty” adding or subtracting books from the canon once the canon was decreed by Damasus

Apparently Cardinal Cajetan thought differently.

“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.”

Steve, he even says they are placed among the apocrypha.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Apparently Cardinal Cajetan thought differently.

Steve, he even says they are placed among the apocrypha.

Jon

Jon, isn’t it strange that Cajetan admits that sacred councils have ruled on these books, and then basically says ignore them, go with Jerome? We know that Augustine held the view that once a book was determined as canonical, it became just as authoritative as the other canonical books. Your appealing to Cajetan, is akin to non-Trinitarians appealing to Arius. Many bishops still held Arian views hundreds of years after the council. Did this make Nicaea less authoritative? As I posted earlier, the argument was academic, in practice, those books were read in Western Christendom as equal to the rest of the OT for hundreds of years. Cajetan was clearly the anomaly, not the norm.

 

[pablope]

Apparently Cardinal Cajetan thought differently.

Quote:
“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.”

Steve, he even says they are placed among the apocrypha.

Jon

Where did Cajetan say so, Jon?

In this part, he is citing Jerome as placing the books in the Apocrypha:

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.

The cites Jerome again in this part… 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.

And in the latter part…he seems to agree with Augustine at Carthage…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.”

In the latter part, Cajetan does not seem to be making a distinction among the canonical books…for all the books in the canon are used for…“the edicification of the faithful.”

 

[pablope]

Jon, isn’t it strange that Cajetan admits that sacred councils have ruled on these books, and then basically says ignore them, go with Jerome? We know that Augustine held the view that once a book was determined as canonical, it became just as authoritative as the other canonical books. Your appealing to Cajetan, is akin to non-Trinitarians appealing to Arius. Many bishops still held Arian views hundreds of years after the council. Did this make Nicaea less authoritative? As I posted earlier, the argument was academic, in practice, those books were read in Western Christendom as equal to the rest of the OT for hundreds of years. Cajetan was clearly the anomaly, not the norm.

If you read carefully what Cajetan says, he agrees with Augustine for these books to be in the canon of Scripture, not out of it.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, isn’t it strange that Cajetan admits that sacred councils have ruled on these books, and then basically says ignore them, go with Jerome? We know that Augustine held the view that once a book was determined as canonical, it became just as authoritative as the other canonical books. Your appealing to Cajetan, is akin to non-Trinitarians appealing to Arius. Many bishops still held Arian views hundreds of years after the council. Did this make Nicaea less authoritative? As I posted earlier, the argument was academic, in practice, those books were read in Western Christendom as equal to the rest of the OT for hundreds of years. Cajetan was clearly the anomaly, not the norm.

Not an anomaly but a minority, and I am not appealing to his opinion, but his liberty to hold it. Even after Florence. I don’t agree with him or Luther, whose view is similar. I am disputing the position that holds Luther to a different standard than others who disputed the DC books.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If you read carefully what Cajetan says, he agrees with Augustine for these books to be in the canon of Scripture, not out of it.

But in a different way. He says if it is used liturgically or in teaching, it can be called canon. By that standard, they are canonical for Lutherans, too. And Anglicans.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Not an anomaly but a minority, and I am not appealing to his opinion, but his liberty to hold it. Even after Florence. I don’t agree with him or Luther, whose view is similar. I am disputing the position that holds Luther to a different standard than others who disputed the DC books.

Jon

Now now, Jon. Luther has been dead for almost 500 years, get over it, and let it go. I have.

Since you converted to Anglicanism, my new punching bag has become Cranmer.

He is fresher in our collective memories.

 

[Duane1966]

If you read carefully what Cajetan says, he agrees with Augustine for these books to be in the canon of Scripture, not out of it.

But look at the stipulation Cajetan puts on those books, whereas Augustine holds no stipulations on the books.

 

[JonNC]

Now now, Jon. Luther has been dead for almost 500 years, get over it, and let it go. I have.

Since you converted to Anglicanism, my new punching bag has become Cranmer.

He is fresher in our collective memories.

How long has Cranmer been dead.

Jon

 

[pablope]

But in a different way. He says if it is used liturgically or in teaching, it can be called canon. By that standard, they are canonical for Lutherans, too. And Anglicans.

Jon

But…to be canonical…when those fathers defined what is to be canonical…meant it is to be read in the liturgy and for teaching…and this is how the Bible began in its infancy…

 

[steve_b]

Jon, isn’t it strange that Cajetan admits that sacred councils have ruled on these books, and then basically says ignore them, go with Jerome? We know that Augustine held the view that once a book was determined as canonical,it became just as authoritative as the other canonical books.

yes

Augustine, a contemporary of Jerome, wrote: (emphasis mine)

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part,* I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church*. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?” Augustine ch 4 para 5, & ch 5 para 6 (A.D. 397).

That shows the mind of Augustine
D:

Your appealing to Cajetan, is akin to non-Trinitarians appealing to Arius. Many bishops still held Arian views hundreds of years after the council. Did this make Nicaea less authoritative?

Excellent point. therefore, one needs to not just look at the source but the quality of the source as well.

For example, since Augustine has already been mentioned, Augustine also wrote

"No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures no peaceable person against the Church. "
“On the Trinity” , Book 4 ch 6 para 10

Again that shows the mind of Augustine
D:

As I posted earlier, the argument was academic, in practice, those books were read in Western Christendom as equal to the rest of the OT for hundreds of years. Cajetan was clearly the anomaly, not the norm.

For our friends

The Old Testament Canon

How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals

Do we have bibles from A.D. 400-1500, and were the deuterocanonicals left out or put in a separate section in any of them?

Did the Church add the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible at the Council of Trent?

If the deuterocanonical books don’t claim divine inspiration, how can they be included in the Bible?

Was the Council of Trent inconsistent in its treatment of the deuterocanonical books?

Is the story of Bel and the Dragon just a metaphor? , (6 min video answer)

The Case for the Deuterocanon , (53 min video answer)

Why do Catholic Bibles have seven more books than Protestant Bibles? , (7 min video answer)