Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[frobert]

What is the most problematic “single issue” that keeps you from coming into full communion With Rome?

Is it the Papacy or is it Our veneration of Mary?

If you feel like it, please specify what direction of Christianity you belong to

• Peace in Christ

Since this topic has appeared I have been studying the differences, I find it complicated but I am going to attempt a brief if inadequate answer.

Protestants hold the the scriptures in high authority and the traditions of the church in low if any authority.

Catholics hold both scriptures and tradition in high and most likely equal authority.

It is not hard to see why Protestants are not Catholic and why many have never given conversion to Catholicism a thought. Yet, I can imagine a multitude of different answers as to why someone would hold to whatever religion they belong to.

 

[josie_L]

Laodiceans was in some editions of the vulgate. It was removed for good at Trent.

As for why we don’t accept the deuteros it mainly has to do with their omission from the Hebrew bible. There are other reasons as well, namely that they have been debated since the beginning. We prefer not to say what is NOT canon and go with what IS. That’s why Protestants have an open canon and Catholics have a closed canon.

Actually, there are some Hebrew bibles that do contain the deuterocanonical book (African /Ethiopan Jews), moreover, during Jesus’s lifetime the consensus on what was scriptural or not varied, i.e., the Sadducees, Pharisees and Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora all had different opinions concerning the validity of what was and wasn’t scriptural. The majority, however, used the septuagint that contained the deuterocanonical books. This changed after Jesus’s death, i.e., they held a council in the latter half of the first century wherein they decreed the deuterocanonical books were not scriptural, but these were the very same Jews who did not recognize their own Messiah, and upon which you are relying on to determine the validity of said books. There are many examples of Jesus and the apostles referencing the deuterocanonical books in the N.T., and for this reason alone they should be accepted as scriptural. I know that even the didache (teaching of the twelve) also contains references and quotes to these books. There were also councils in the past that listed what was scriptural, these councils are: the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397 and 419). The Council of Carthage of 419 is special because its canons were implicitly affirmed at the 7th ecumenical council of Nicea II (as well as Florence and Trent). The Catholic Church has always understood that the deuterocanonical books were scriptural, i.e., divinely inspired (and so do the Orthodox), so Protestants have indeed done away with parts of the Bible. And you cannot say that Protestants do not determine what is not canon because they have relegated the deuterocanonical books to non-scriptural status (apocrypha) on the basis of the Hebrew bible, i.e., Jewish authority post-resurrecton.

 

[josie_L]

A blog worth reading regarding the traditional Lutheran handling of scripture, including the Derterocanon and Prayer of Manasseh.

latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html

Jon

Jon, the writer suggests that just because the deuterocanonical books (considered apocrypha) are in the Lutheran Bible (not part of the Bible) that it is wrong to state there are therefore 66 books in the Bible, but this is wrong on so many levels. Protestant bibles (including the Lutheran bible) are smaller than Catholic ones because the number of books that we consider/ed divinely inspired are different (66 to 73).

 

[josie_L]

As I was researching I came across this info taken from a book written by Phillip Shaff entitled " A History of the Christian Church", here’s an excerpt:

In the progress of the work he founded a Collegium Biblieum, or Bible club, consisting of his colleagues Melanchthon, Bugenhagen (Pommer), Cruciger, Justus Jonas, and Aurogallus. They met once a week in his house, several hours before supper. Deacon Georg Rörer (Rorarius), the first clergyman ordained by Luther, and his proof-reader, was also present; occasionally foreign scholars were admitted; and Jewish rabbis were freely consulted. Each member of the company contributed to the work from his special knowledge and preparation. Melanchthon brought with him the Greek Bible, Cruciger the Hebrew and Chaldee, Bugenhagen the Vulgate, others the old commentators; Luther had always with him the Latin and the German versions besides the Hebrew. Sometimes they scarcely mastered three lines of the Book of Job in four days, and hunted two, three, and four weeks for a single word. No record exists of the discussions of this remarkable company, but Mathesius says that “wonderfully beautiful and instructive speeches were made.”

At last the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha as “books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read,” was completed in 1534, and printed with numerous woodcuts.

bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

This means that Luther with his fellow reformers did indeed relegate the deuterocanonical books to apocrypha, therefore, undermining the Tradition of the Church which held these books to be divinely inspired. In other words, they did take away books from the canon of the Bible.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, the writer suggests that just because the deuterocanonical books (considered apocrypha) are in the Lutheran Bible (not part of the Bible) that it is wrong to state there are therefore 66 books in the Bible, but this is wrong on so many levels. Protestant bibles (including the Lutheran bible) are smaller than Catholic ones because the number of books that we consider/ed divinely inspired are different (66 to 73).

And Catholic Bibles are smaller than Orthodox Bibles. The point is even in the Lutheran Confessions they are considered “scripture”. referring to Cardinal Cajetan, he says about the deuterocanon,*** "Now, according to his [St. Jerome] 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.” ***

Here we have a Catholic Cardinal, pre-Trent of course, an understanding of “canonical” as
“a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.” This is an understanding not unlike the Lutheran view.

Jon

 

[HeadingBackHome]

A numerous of reasons: the lack of authority (hence the Vatican), the non existing tradition, the false doctrine, but foremost the fact that principlely everyone can do as Luther and chose to keep the parts of the faith that you like and trash the rest ( the 73 books of the bible reduced to 66 by Luther)

Also I wouldn’t lay my eternal destiny in the hands of some excommunicated munk as Luther, then I prefer to rely on 2000 years of Traditions and be led by the Pope.

If I have to pick one reason it will be the last one…

Part 2: I prefer to be led by the Holy Spirit and God’s Word, and not some excommunicated monk or a Pope.

Hi Batman my friend

Im sorry if I offended you and/or others in any way with my view on the Protestantism, I just expressed the reason why Im not drawn towards the Evangelical Churches as I was answering a question directed towards me. I didnt think that I was about to recieve an answer to it. Im happy to clarify what I ment With the second part of my post.

** as Catholics we believe that Christ established only One Church and that the One Church is the Catholic Church. We believe that the popes are Peter’s successors and that the pope are given a special gift of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church, so church doctrine will always be free of errors as it is led by the Holy Spirit.

Thats what I ment when saying that Im chosing to be led by the Pope/ Vatican as its the same as being led by the Holy Spirit (its synonyms in my eyes).
Its not the Pope in person (as he is only a human like you and me), but rather the position Im bowing for as the Papacy are an arrangement according to God’s will.**

*to break with Rome is in my opinion refusing to submit to God’s arrangement something I see as very arrogant and proud.

I respect however, that others may look different on the world than what I do. This is just the main reason why I will never leave the Catholic Church. *

• Peace in Christ

 

[Randy_Carson]

And Catholic Bibles are smaller than Orthodox Bibles. The point is even in the Lutheran Confessions they are considered “scripture”. referring to Cardinal Cajetan, he says about the deuterocanon,*** "Now, according to his [St. Jerome] 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.” ***

Here we have a Catholic Cardinal, pre-Trent of course, an understanding of “canonical” as
“a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.” This is an understanding not unlike the Lutheran view.

Jon

Jon-

I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the canon is not closed. The Church could add books in the future or approve some variations in the canon for different rites…provided the books that have been canonized are included in the expanded group.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Batman my friend

Im sorry if I offended you and/or others in any way with my view on the Protestantism, I just expressed the reason why Im not drawn towards the Evangelical Churches as I was answering a question directed towards me. I didnt think that I was about to recieve an answer to it. Im happy to clarify what I ment With the second part of my post.

** as Catholics we believe that Christ established only One Church and that the One Church is the Catholic Church. We believe that the popes are Peter’s successors and that the pope are given a special gift of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church, so church doctrine will always be free of errors as it is led by the Holy Spirit.

Thats what I ment when saying that Im chosing to be led by the Pope/ Vatican as its the same as being led by the Holy Spirit (its synonyms in my eyes).
Its not the Pope in person (as he is only a human like you and me), but rather the position Im bowing for as the Papacy are an arrangement according to God’s will.**

to break with Rome is in my opinion refusing to submit to God’s arrangement something I see as very arrogant and proud.

I respect however, that others may look different on the world than what I do. This is just the main reason why I will never leave the Catholic Church.

• Peace in Christ my Brother

It isn’t that you offended. The problem is you misrepresented Lutheranism, however unintentional that may have been. No Lutheran would ever claim to “lay my eternal destiny in the hands of some excommunicated munk as Luther”. We lay our eternal destiny in the One whose hands were pierced by nails, who suffered and died, then rose again.
It isn’t even that we don’t want to be in communion with the pope. What we want is for the pope to exercise the leadership he exercised in the early Church, that of a primacy of honor, not a supremacy not found in scripture or the councils.

We, too, believe that Christ only established one Church, holy, catholic, apostolic. And even though it is in division, it can be found where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the canon is not closed. The Church could add books in the future or approve some variations in the canon for different rites…provided the books that have been canonized are included in the expanded group.

Hi Randy,
While the canon is technically open, I can’t see any kind of dramatic change in Lutheran consideration of books. The history of the Church points to books that are attested, disputed, and rejected. What I could see, however, is a willingness to discuss the role of he DC’s under the ecumenical dialogues that our communions have.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
While the canon is technically open, I can’t see any kind of dramatic change in Lutheran consideration of books. The history of the Church points to books that are attested, disputed, and rejected. What I could see, however, is a willingness to discuss the role of he DC’s under the ecumenical dialogues that our communions have.

Jon

If the EO and RC’s decided to reunite, it seems likely that the Catholic Church would approve an expanded canon for Eastern use, doesn’t it?

But I doubt that Latin Rite lectionaries would be revised.

 

[JonNC]

If the EO and RC’s decided to reunite, it seems likely that the Catholic Church would approve an expanded canon for Eastern use, doesn’t it?

But I doubt that Latin Rite lectionaries would be revised.

Why not? There are Lutheran synods and parishes that still use the DC’s in their lectionaries. But on the main point, I could see the same from Lutherans for the usages Cajetan talks about in the quote I provided.

Jon

 

[Protestor]

I like being able to objectively look at dogmas and theology and decide which things make the most sense to me. I have a friend who recently had to accept something she does not think is correct purely because it disagreed with catholic teaching. I respect tradition and I love reading early christian writings and church councils and papal encyclicals. I think all of their opinions strengthen my faith and there is so much wisdom to be gleaned from tradition. But I also would never submit to arguments that I find just as valid or less valid than the ones I currently hold. The RCC has nice and convincing arguments for what it believes, but I find that it is also incapable of destroying protestant theologies for the most part. I also just have a problem with human authorities no matter if they are the pope or the president. Another caveat is that I find my arguments convincing because of the way I view scripture; meaning I combine and interpret scripture completely differently in some cases then the way a catholic would.

To bring it back to my original point I do not think RC can be objective with certain elements of their theology. I am not disillusioned into thinking I am completely objective I am not, but it is something that I strive towards. :coffeeread:
You guys are prob like :banghead: believe me I am not comparing you with these people but the mother God people, mormons and jehova witnesses do the same thing

 

[josie_L]

And Catholic Bibles are smaller than Orthodox Bibles. The point is even in the Lutheran Confessions they are considered “scripture”. referring to Cardinal Cajetan, he says about the deuterocanon,*** "Now, according to his [St. Jerome] 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.” ***

Here we have a Catholic Cardinal, pre-Trent of course, an understanding of “canonical” as
“a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.” This is an understanding not unlike the Lutheran view.

Jon

And is Cardinal Cajetan the pope and the magisterium all combined in one, honestly, Jon, this argument is silly at best, moreover, you keep bringing the Orthodox up as if to say that Luther had the right to relegate the deuterocanonical books to apocrypha, i.e., even if the Orthodox have more books (and this varies) than Catholics, Catholics have never settled whether or not those particular books were scriptural, so it’s an open-ended question to this day. Anyhow you keep missing the point (Luther was an ex-Catholic who created his own Tradition by relegating parts of the Bible to apocrypha), i.e., the Orthodox and Catholics do share the deuterocanonical books in common. So I ask where was Luther’s authority coming from when he and other reformers decided to make these books less than scriptural, according to House of Harkonen, it came from Jewish authority (post resurrection). And if they were indeed scriptural according to the Lutheran confession then why bother putting quotations? They either are or they aren’t.

 

[josie_L]

Why not? There are Lutheran synods and parishes that still use the DC’s in their lectionaries. But on the main point, I could see the same from Lutherans for the usages Cajetan talks about in the quote I provided.

Jon

I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the fact that you’ll use a Catholic to uphold Luther’s view but not that of the whole Catholic Church, i.e., with regard to scripture.

 

[josie_L]

If the EO and RC’s decided to reunite, it seems likely that the Catholic Church would approve an expanded canon for Eastern use, doesn’t it?

Exactly!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Actually, there are some Hebrew bibles that do contain the deuterocanonical book (African /Ethiopan Jews), moreover, during Jesus’s lifetime the consensus on what was scriptural or not varied, i.e., the Sadducees, Pharisees and Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora all had different opinions concerning the validity of what was and wasn’t scriptural. The majority, however, used the septuagint that contained the deuterocanonical books. This changed after Jesus’s death, i.e., they held a council in the latter half of the first century wherein they decreed the deuterocanonical books were not scriptural, but these were the very same Jews who did not recognize their own Messiah, and upon which you are relying on to determine the validity of said books. There are many examples of Jesus and the apostles referencing the deuterocanonical books in the N.T., and for this reason alone they should be accepted as scriptural. I know that even the didache (teaching of the twelve) also contains references and quotes to these books. There were also councils in the past that listed what was scriptural, these councils are: the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397 and 419). The Council of Carthage of 419 is special because its canons were implicitly affirmed at the 7th ecumenical council of Nicea II (as well as Florence and Trent). The Catholic Church has always understood that the deuterocanonical books were scriptural, i.e., divinely inspired (and so do the Orthodox), so Protestants have indeed done away with parts of the Bible. And you cannot say that Protestants do not determine what is not canon because they have relegated the deuterocanonical books to non-scriptural status (apocrypha) on the basis of the Hebrew bible, i.e., Jewish authority post-resurrecton.

The majority, however, used the septuagint that contained the deuterocanonical books. This changed after Jesus’s death, i.e., they held a council in the latter half of the first century wherein they decreed the deuterocanonical books were not scriptural, but these were the very same Jews who did not recognize their own Messiah, and upon which you are relying on to determine the validity of said books.

If your referring to the Council of Jamnia, most historians agree that it never happened and there is no such thing.

There were also councils in the past that listed what was scriptural, these councils are: the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393) and the Council of Carthage (397 and 419). The Council of Carthage of 419 is special because its canons were implicitly affirmed at the 7th ecumenical council of Nicea II (as well as Florence and Trent).

So? They were local councils only. That’s why the many parts of the church don’t use the canon as defined by Hippo and Carthage. And the books would continue our be debated up until Trent.

The Catholic Church has always understood that the deuterocanonical books were scriptural, i.e., divinely inspired (and so do the Orthodox),

Many learned Catholics from Jerome to Cajetan and Erasmus questioned them. They remained in good standing.

so Protestants have indeed done away with parts of the Bible. And you cannot say that Protestants do not determine what is not canon because they have relegated the deuterocanonical books to non-scriptural status (apocrypha) on the basis of the Hebrew bible, i.e., Jewish authority post-resurrecton

There was no Jewish authority post resurrection that enumerated the canon. Protestants are simply holding to Jerome and Cajetan and Erasmus view that the books are valuable but not scripture. A view that was within bounds for Catholics prior to Trent.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

And is Cardinal Cajetan the pope and the magisterium all combined in one, honestly, Jon, this argument is silly at best, moreover, you keep bringing the Orthodox up as if to say that Luther had the right to relegate the deuterocanonical books to apocrypha, i.e., even if the Orthodox have more books (and this varies) than Catholics, Catholics have never settled whether or not those particular books were scriptural, so it’s an open-ended question to this day. Anyhow you keep missing the point (Luther was an ex-Catholic who created his own Tradition by relegating parts of the Bible to apocrypha), i.e., the Orthodox and Catholics do share the deuterocanonical books in common. So I ask where was Luther’s authority coming from when he and other reformers decided to make these books less than scriptural, according to House of Harkonen, it came from Jewish authority (post resurrection). And if they were indeed scriptural according to the Lutheran confession then why bother putting quotations? They either are or they aren’t.

So I ask where was Luther’s authority coming from when he and other reformers decided to make these books less than scriptural, according to House of Harkonen, it came from Jewish authority (post resurrection). And if they were indeed scriptural according to the Lutheran confession then why bother putting quotations? They either are or they aren’t.

Luther was simply following a minority school of thought that was consistent with pre Trent Catholicism.

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;11497039]And is Cardinal Cajetan the pope and the magisterium all combined in one, honestly, Jon, this argument is silly at best,

That is an odd remark. as I made no such implication. The fact is Cajetan, Erasmus, Luther, all had the privilege of opinion regarding the canon

moreover, you keep bringing the Orthodox up as if to say that Luther had the right to relegate the deuterocanonical books to apocrypha, i.e., even if the Orthodox have more books (and this varies) than Catholics

Luther had every privilege to hold his opinion regarding the DC’s. This was permitted prior to Trent. Further, the Orthodox are evidence that there never has been a universally accepted canon, even prior to the Reformation.

, Catholics have never settled whether or not those particular books were scriptural, so it’s an open-ended question to this day. Anyhow you keep missing the point (Luther was an ex-Catholic who created his own Tradition by relegating parts of the Bible to apocrypha), i.e., the Orthodox and Catholics do share the deuterocanonical books in common.

Evidently, the facts show that there is no new Tradition here, that other Catholics held similar views as Luther.

So I ask where was Luther’s authority coming from when he and other reformers decided to make these books less than scriptural, according to House of Harkonen, it came from Jewish authority (post resurrection). And if they were indeed scriptural according to the Lutheran confession then why bother putting quotations? They either are or they aren’t.

The Catholic privilege which existed prior to Trent, exercised by Jerome, and many others.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the fact that you’ll use a Catholic to uphold Luther’s view but not that of the whole Catholic Church, i.e., with regard to scripture.

A complaint one often hears from CAtholics about Protestant, sometimes legitimately, is a failure to consider the history of the Church, and here you seem to be complaining that I am.
I reference him because he offers a POV somewhat similar to Luther’s as a contemporary and clearly no ally of Luther. If we are to talk about the issue, why would I restrict myself?

Jon

 

[josie_L]

If your referring to the Council of Jamnia, most historians agree that it never happened and there is no such thing.

Whether this council existed or not you said that scripture was based on the Hebrew Bible for the most part.

So? They were local councils only. That’s why the many parts of the church don’t use the canon as defined by Hippo and Carthage. And the books would continue our be debated up until Trent.

Even if they were local councils they all believed the same thing vis a vis scripture, i.e., Tradition states that these books were indeed scriptural, moreover, the Council of Carthage of 419 was implicitly accepted during the 7th ecumenical council and at Florence (the Orthodox also accept these books as scriptural). Also, please show me any council that suggests that the mind of the Church had changed concerning these books or better yet find me a bible prior to the Reformation that doesn’t have these books in them, i.e., citing a few Catholics that disagreed with the Canon is no less realistic than citing a recalcitrant bishop of today that differs on doctrines/Tradition already long held by the Church.

Many learned Catholics from Jerome to Cajetan and Erasmus questioned them. They remained in good standing.

Yes, they may have questioned them like others have questioned other Traditions, however, they knew the mind of the Church was already established in this respect, and accepted the decisions that were made.

There was no Jewish authority post resurrection that enumerated the canon. Protestants are simply holding to Jerome and Cajetan and Erasmus view that the books are valuable but not scripture. A view that was within bounds for Catholics prior to Trent.

Forgive me, but you mentioned the Hebrew Bible when we first spoke about accepting the deuterocanonical books, moreover, Tradition was such that the deuterocanonical books were considered divinely inspired. Protestants are not holding any view considered remotely Catholic or Orthodox (Jerome, Cajetan, and Erasmus died as Catholics, i.e., they accepted the Church’s teachings (Jerome wrote the Latin vulgate which included the deuterocanoncal books as scriptural not apocrypha, and last I checked Cajetan and Erasmus were Catholics in good standing, i.e., they accepted church teaching).