Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[josie_L]

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

There was no school of thought, i.e., just a few Catholics over the course of a milllenia that questioned or doubted but still remained loyal to Church teachings/Traditions?

 

[josie_L]

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

Yes, they held opinions (although Erasmus was not a priest/bishop) but they never went against Church traditions/teachings (St. Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate with the deuterocanonical books as scriptural not apocrypha).

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.

I never said he didn’t have the right to an opinion, I said where did his authority come from (find me any council that agreed with him vis a vis scripture), moreover, find me a bible prior to the reformation that did not have the deuterocanonical books (Catholic or Orthodox). And the Orthodox don’t need a universally accepted canon because they have held on to Tradition, i.e., there was no need to protect/dogmatize what wasn’t questioned.

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

This is false, Luther created his own Tradition when he stripped the deuterocanonical books of their divinity.

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

Jon

Yes, it was a privilege not a right, i.e., Luther went beyond the confines of that privilege and set a new precedence.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

There was no school of thought, i.e., just a few Catholics over the course of a milllenia that questioned or doubted but still remained loyal to Church teachings/Traditions?

That’s silly. A few dissenters is a school however small. Yet they remained in good standing.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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

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.

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.

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).

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

The OT. To them are trusted the oracles of God.

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).

The Orthodox accept more books then the RC. That must mean the RC took books out if the canon right?

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.

That’s not true. Cajetan was no friend of Luther, yet they were of the same school on the canon of scripture. Why would he remain in good standing if he didn’t accept these books as canon?

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.

Tradition was that it was acceptable to question them.

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).

Protestants are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church just as are the Orthodox who accept a different canon then the RC.

Which canon is the one true canon? The RC? The EO? The Oriental orthodox? The Ethiopian canon? The Assyrian?

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;11497813]Yes, they held opinions (although Erasmus was not a priest/bishop) but they never went against Church traditions/teachings (St. Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate with the deuterocanonical books as scriptural not apocrypha).

So, his opinion that the were apocryphal was going against Church teachings/traditions? I think not. As I said, the Christian privilege was there. If it was there, it was allowed.

I never said he didn’t have the right to an opinion, I said where did his authority come from (find me any council that agreed with him vis a vis scripture), moreover, find me a bible prior to the reformation that did not have the deuterocanonical books (Catholic or Orthodox). And the Orthodox don’t need a universally accepted canon because they have held on to Tradition, i.e., there was no need to protect/dogmatize what wasn’t questioned.

Why would he need some special authority to express his opinion? If he was permitted his opinion, he was permitted his opinion. Was it required for him to have a council to have his opinion? Find me a Luther Bible that didn’t have the DC’s in it.

This is false, Luther created his own Tradition when he stripped the deuterocanonical books of their divinity.

It is not false. Other Catholics held the same opinion, and they were permitted it, too. You seem intent on setting a separate standard for Luther as compared to others in the Church. I understand the dislike for Luther in some circles, but the standards have to be consistent. If Cajetan can say they were not canon, so can Luther.

Yes, it was a privilege not a right, i.e., Luther went beyond the confines of that privilege and set a new precedence.

Now this is false. What new precedent did he set? Oh, I know. He placed the books in a different order.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

That’s silly. A few dissenters is a school however small. Yet they remained in good standing.

How is this silly when all you’ve given me are three people in the course of 1500 years, one of which was not even a father of the Church (Erasmus), while St. Jerome (doctor of the Church) translated the Latin Vulgate which included the deuterocanonical books as scripture (not apocrypha), and the other, Cajetan, a Catholic cardinal who publicly debated Luther and called him out for denying Sacred Tradition. So, yes they were Catholics in good standing.

p.s. If you include any council or find me any bible (on the Internet) which does not contain the deuterocanonical books, then we’ll get somewhere, until then, Luther innovated and removed books from the Bible.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

How is this silly when all you’ve given me are three people in the course of 1500 years, one of which was not even a father of the Church (Erasmus), while St. Jerome (doctor of the Church) translated the Latin Vulgate which included the deuterocanonical books as scripture (not apocrypha), and the other, Cajetan, a Catholic cardinal who publicly debated Luther and called him out for denying Sacred Tradition. So, yes they were Catholics in good standing.

p.s. If you include any council or find me any bible (on the Internet) which does not contain the deuterocanonical books, then we’ll get somewhere, until then, Luther innovated and removed books from the Bible.

How is this silly when all you’ve given me are three people in the course of 1500 years, one of which was not even a father of the Church (Erasmus), while St. Jerome (doctor of the Church) translated the Latin Vulgate which included the deuterocanonical books as scripture (not apocrypha), and the other, Cajetan, a Catholic cardinal who publicly debated Luther and called him out for denying Sacred Tradition. So, yes they were Catholics in good standing.

How could they remain in good standing if they denied these books status as scripture? It’s because before Trent a catholic was privileged to question them.

If you include any council or find me any bible (on the Internet) which does not contain the deuterocanonical books, then we’ll get somewhere, until then, Luther innovated and removed books from the Bible.

No bible omitted the deuteros until the 1800s, Protestant or Catholic.

 

[josie_L]

The OT. To them are trusted the oracles of God

.

When was the Hebrew bible put together, i.e., since many Greek-speaking Jews in the diaspora used the septuagint containing the deuterocanonical books.

The Orthodox accept more books then the RC. That must mean the RC took books out if the canon right?

Well, if the CC had removed books from its canon then we would have evidence for this, i.e., where’s the evidence? I mean can you produce councils from the first millenia of the Church that would suggest this? The fact of the matter is that the deuterocanonical books were accepted by all Orthodox. Again, you can’t prove from Church history why the deuterocanonical books are not scriptural because both the Orthodox and Catholic Church had accepted them as scriptural.

That’s not true. Cajetan was no friend of Luther, yet they were of the same school on the canon of scripture. Why would he remain in good standing if he didn’t accept these books as canon?

Cajetan may have had his opinions about certain books but he would never put himself above the Church, i.e., he would not have insisted upon removing books from the Bible if the Church disagreed. He died before Trent ever took place but his public debates with Luther were a testament to his acceptance of Church authority and teaching/Traditions.

Tradition was that it was acceptable to question them.

Whenever a doctrine of the Church was questioned and things got heated then more than likely the Church would settle matters via a council, usually ecumenical (which is what happened with the canon of the Bible).

Protestants are part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church just as are the Orthodox who accept a different canon then the RC.

They are in varying degrees in spiritual communion with the OHCAC because of their trinitarian baptism, but they are not part of the visible communion, i.e., when Jesus prayed that we may be one He wasn’t suggesting some ephemeral/invisible Church, i.e., there was and is only one Church of Christ.

Which canon is the one true canon? The RC? The EO? The Oriental orthodox? The Ethiopian canon? The Assyrian?

You can start by seeing which books we all hold in common.

 

[dronald]

I think what he’s saying is, if the RCC was so certain of how many books were in the Canon then why would any bishop or doctor question them?

If the Canon was decided before Trent (let’s say in the year 375ish) then no one would have questioned it. If however it was still open for discussion then it makes sense that doctors and bishops would. That is, until Trent.

There’s a reason Catholics don’t question it any more.

 

[josie_L]

How could they remain in good standing if they denied these books status as scripture? It’s because before Trent a catholic was privileged to question them.

A Catholic could question them but they could not denounce them and/or remove them from the Bible without consulting the whole Church.

No bible omitted the deuteros until the 1800s, Protestant or Catholic.

You are mistaken in that they are called “deuterocanonical”, i.e., they may have been in bibles prior to 1800s but they were labelled “apocrypha”, i.e., not as divinely inspired scripture.

 

[josie_L]

I think what he’s saying is, if the RCC was so certain of how many books were in the Canon then why would any bishop or doctor question them?

Because they’re human and don’t represent the whole Church or rather the mindset of the Church, i.e., they can err.

If the Canon was decided before Trent (let’s say in the year 375ish) then no one would have questioned it. If however it was still open for discussion then it makes sense that doctors and bishops would. That is, until Trent.

There’s a reason Catholics don’t question it any more.

There was no ecumenical council per se that established once and for all the authenticity of the books in the Bible (before Trent), but the deuterocanonical books were pretty much accepted by the Church (via local councils and in a more implicit manner via the 7th ecumenical council). Moreover, as Catholics we believe in upholding Tradition, i.e., if for 1500 years there was a consensus (notwithstanding a person here or there who questioned) on what scripture was, then how could one or two dissenting persons undermine all this? This is not the first time that Catholics had to deal with dissenting views concerning doctrines/sacred tradition, i.e., many of whom left the Church branded as heretics for falsifying or denying any part of the deposit of faith.

 

[dronald]

Because they’re human and don’t represent the whole Church or rather the mindset of the Church, i.e., they can err.

There was no ecumenical council per se that established once and for all the authenticity of the books in the Bible (before Trent), but the deuterocanonical books were pretty much accepted by the Church (via local councils and in a more implicit manner via the 7th ecumenical council). Moreover, as Catholics we believe in upholding Tradition, i.e., if for 1500 years there was a consensus (notwithstanding a person here or there who questioned) on what scripture was, then how could one or two dissenting persons undermine all this? This is not the first time that Catholics had to deal with dissenting views concerning doctrines/sacred tradition, i.e., many of whom left the Church branded as heretics for falsifying or denying any part of the deposit of faith.

There’s a big difference between “it was accepted” and “it was pretty much accepted.”

Also, somehow tradition lead other Church’s to accept more books. So how can we really trust Tradition when different conclusions are drawn?

 

[josie_L]

There’s a big difference between “it was accepted” and “it was pretty much accepted.”

Also, somehow tradition lead other Church’s to accept more books. So how can we really trust Tradition when different conclusions are drawn?

It was accepted, moreover, you can accept it based on Tradition because the deuterocanonical books were never held to be non-scriptural by the Church until Luther and the Reformation.

 

[dronald]

It was accepted, moreover, you can accept it based on Tradition because the deuterocanonical books were never held to be non-scriptural by the Church until Luther and the Reformation.

What Tradition though? Isn’t the Orthodox Canon larger or am I mistaken?

 

[josie_L]

What Tradition though? Isn’t the Orthodox Canon larger or am I mistaken?

Yes, their canon is slightly bigger, but again, we have never contested (don’t know of any councils) nor have we had the opportunity to question the veracity of said books after we schismed, i.e., if a union between Orthodox and Catholics were to happen then it is possible that the canon could include these books (Trent only established that the books within our Bible were canonical). To deny however that there is no Tradition is erroneous, we know that the deuterocanonical books were accepted by both Churches. It was only until Luther and the Reformation that these books were considered apocrypha.

 

[dronald]

Yes, their canon is slightly bigger, but again, we have never contested (don’t know of any councils) nor have we had the opportunity to question the veracity of said books after we schismed, i.e., if a union between Orthodox and Catholics were to happen then it is possible that the canon could include these books (Trent only established that the books within our Bible were canonical). To deny however that there is no Tradition is erroneous, we know that the deuterocanonical books were accepted by both Churches. It was only until Luther and the Reformation that these books were considered apocrypha.

So what does Tradition say about the extra books? I mean, it may not be official but tradition is tradition.

 

[aidanbradypop]

What Tradition though? Isn’t the Orthodox Canon larger or am I mistaken?

Yes, their canon is slightly bigger, but again, we have never contested (don’t know of any councils) nor have we had the opportunity to question the veracity of said books after we schismed, i.e., if a union between Orthodox and Catholics were to happen then it is possible that the canon could include these books (Trent only established that the books within our Bible were canonical). To deny however that there is no Tradition is erroneous, we know that the deuterocanonical books were accepted by both Churches. It was only until Luther and the Reformation that these books were considered apocrypha.

This conversation can bring up more questions. Josie you keep bring us that Protestant do not have all the books of the Bible…66 I believe you state. Although my Bible has every book that your Catholic bible has, you then draw the line in the sand between DC and apocrypha.

So you the Orthodox have even more books in their bible as stated and they are considered a valid Church with valid Sacraments…they your argument could then be turned around back on you right? Why does the RCC not accept the FULL version of the Scriptures?

Tradition also keep being thrown around and although I am not against Tradition, it can differ from Church to Church. I was just in the EC section of the forum and they were talking about how a Byzantine Catholic has different Sacred Traditions that the Latin Rite. Orthodoxy and Catholic differ a bit on Orginial Sin. Does that make their Tradition wrong?

more questions than answers I believe

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This conversation can bring up more questions. Josie you keep bring us that Protestant do not have all the books of the Bible…66 I believe you state. Although my Bible has every book that your Catholic bible has, you then draw the line in the sand between DC and apocrypha.

So you the Orthodox have even more books in their bible as stated and they are considered a valid Church with valid Sacraments…they your argument could then be turned around back on you right? Why does the RCC not accept the FULL version of the Scriptures?

Tradition also keep being thrown around and although I am not against Tradition, it can differ from Church to Church. I was just in the EC section of the forum and they were talking about how a Byzantine Catholic has different Sacred Traditions that the Latin Rite. Orthodoxy and Catholic differ a bit on Orginial Sin. Does that make their Tradition wrong?

more questions than answers I believe

Thing is that all these Churches you mentioned - do carry various Apostolic Traditions of the same Faith. Which later developed into different rites and doctrines of that same Faith.

The Catholic Church alone - has 23 different Rites (Although they really can be narrowed down to 4 basic ones, from which the others come from)

These Churches carry on the Apostolic Traditions as delivered to them from that same Faith.

From all our Protestant separated brethren posters, I am sad to not see you understand this better

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes, their canon is slightly bigger, but again, we have never contested (don’t know of any councils) nor have we had the opportunity to question the veracity of said books after we schismed, i.e., if a union between Orthodox and Catholics were to happen then it is possible that the canon could include these books (Trent only established that the books within our Bible were canonical). To deny however that there is no Tradition is erroneous, we know that the deuterocanonical books were accepted by both Churches. It was only until Luther and the Reformation that these books were considered apocrypha.

You must keep in mind that the Common Lectionary is used by virtually every Christian. Some Eastern Orthodox also follow the Gregorian calendar. Which means we are all hearing the same readings at Mass today. Some holy days differ but even Lutheran pericopes include readings from apocrypha.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Thing is that all these Churches you mentioned - do carry various Apostolic Traditions of the same Faith. Which later developed into different rites and doctrines of that same Faith.

The Catholic Church alone - has 23 different Rites (Although they really can be narrowed down to 4 basic ones, from which the others come from)

These Churches carry on the Apostolic Traditions as delivered to them from that same Faith.

From all our Protestant separated brethren posters, I am sad to not see you understand this better

Jose my Church also has Apostolic Tradition. Scripture-Tradition-Reason is what we should go by. You know me well enough to know I favor Tradition