Question about Catholic Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesusismyfriend
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is quite an interesting question–inspired writings that may exist but have not been canonized.

As for Trent, that is something I’ve wondered about. Did Trent close the canon, or simply state which books were to be in the canon and not state which books were not?
This would be a different discussion than that which I’ve raised (whether or not Luther is being treated with a double standard on the canon- which I think he is by many Roman Catholics who raise the canon issue).

Regardless, one of the conclusions my question leads to is that for Roman Catholics (according to Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta’s research), the canon is not exactly closed for Roman Catholics. What this would imply is that Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. Therefore, Roman Catholics still do not have certainty as to the complete canon. This though is a different topic.

Regards, James Swan
 
And by the way, the old Latin Vulgate does not = Douay Rheims.

Regards, James
Just want to understand what you mean bu “old”, were there were different versions of the Vulgate, at least one of which contained 3 Maccabbees or that 3 Maccabbees wan in the original Vulgate?
 
The information I posted from Mr. Michuta comes from a book that is offered by Catholic Answers. I suggest if you wish to challenge the information, please contact Catholic Answers.

Regards, James
Actually from looking at Mr Michuta’s website you and he have had more bouts than Ali/Frazier and I am sure that you each have probably forgotten much more than I know on the subject so I will humbly retreat and learn what more I can on this subject.
 
Actually from looking at Mr Michuta’s website you and he have had more bouts than Ali/Frazier and I am sure that you each have probably forgotten much more than I know on the subject so I will humbly retreat and learn what more I can on this subject.
Sure.

Let me take a moment to point out that I have no personal problems with Mr. Michuta. In terms of public demeanor, I’ve always found him to be admirable and gracious. He did in fact, personally sign my copy of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. I certainly appreciate that Mr. Michuta took the time to write a full-length contemporary treatment of the issue of canonicty (his is the only popular full-length current treatment of the subject from a Roman Catholic perspective that I’m aware of). While I have disagreements with some of his conclusions, I’ve appreciated the issues he raises and provoking me to research.

James

Edited to Add: I’m still interested in anyone answering the questions I’ve raised in regard to Luther and canonicty and whether or not Luther is being treated fairly on this issue. I say, he often isn’t, particularly by Roman Catholics.
 
Sure.

Let me take a moment to point out that I have no personal problems with Mr. Michuta. In terms of public demeanor, I’ve always found him to be admirable and gracious. He did in fact, personally sign my copy of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. I certainly appreciate that Mr. Michuta took the time to write a full-length contemporary treatment of the issue of canonicty (his is the only popular full-length current treatment of the subject from a Roman Catholic perspective that I’m aware of). While I have disagreements with some of his conclusions, I’ve appreciated the issues he raises and provoking me to research.

James

Edited to Add: I’m still interested in anyone answering the questions I’ve raised in regard to Luther and canonicty and whether or not Luther is being treated fairly on this issue. I say, he often isn’t, particularly by Roman Catholics.
Why do you believe Luther was treated unfairly?
 
I’m still interested in anyone answering the questions I’ve raised in regard to Luther and canonicty and whether or not Luther is being treated fairly on this issue. I say, he often isn’t, particularly by Roman Catholics.
In a broad sense I would have to agree with the first point, although, this is at the tip of the iceberg level. Jerome questioned the authenticity of the deuteros but still included them in the Vulgate as he was instructed. Also, if what i have read is correct, Luther DID include them in his Bible. They were not actually totally removed from Protestant Bibles until the 17th or 18th century. So the statement that Luthur removed books from the Bible to me is as unwarrannted as the claim that Trent added these books to the Bible like they were never there. It is very difficult (for me at least) to dig past the venom on both sides to find an adquate answer to this. I mean, interpretation of verses in one thing but I would think this topic should be pretty much cut and dry.

As for the 2nd point, my understanding has certainly been challenged. I thought that the Vulgate contained the same set of books that we have now in the Catholic Bibles, so I will need to revisit the issue. Can you perhaps point me to some info other than wikipedia that would include the 3 books you mention or am I just missing something with this list?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Latin_Vulgate
 
Sure.

Let me take a moment to point out that I have no personal problems with Mr. Michuta. In terms of public demeanor, I’ve always found him to be admirable and gracious. He did in fact, personally sign my copy of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. I certainly appreciate that Mr. Michuta took the time to write a full-length contemporary treatment of the issue of canonicty (his is the only popular full-length current treatment of the subject from a Roman Catholic perspective that I’m aware of). While I have disagreements with some of his conclusions, I’ve appreciated the issues he raises and provoking me to research.

James

Edited to Add: I’m still interested in anyone answering the questions I’ve raised in regard to Luther and canonicty and whether or not Luther is being treated fairly on this issue. I say, he often isn’t, particularly by Roman Catholics.
Hi, James…I do, for one, appreciate your informative answers.

I do have a question for you, if you do not mind…what is your opinion of belief…should the DC books be included in the Bible?

And if you have a source or something…as to how the DC books were finally removed from Protestant Bibles. Is this only confined, initially that is, in the US and Europe (in the 1820s or so).
 
Yes, if you could please cite your source, that would be extremely helpful–maybe it will help us get to the bottom of things.

I read several months, close to a year ago. If I run into it again, I will definitely share it with you.
Luther translated the New Testament first and then began work on the Old Testament. Excerpts were published in stages along the way, much like scholars are doing with the new critical version of the Hebrew Bible that are being published today.
 
What on Earth did the link in the OP set out to prove?? :confused: It basically confirmed that Luther WAS anti-Semetic, thought that good works were completely invaluable to salvation, thought that the Epistle of St. James shouldn’t be in the canon of Sacred Scripture on the basis of his interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans, all of that from just browsing, not to mention that NONE of those quotes mean will REGARDLESS of their context!!
 
Originally Posted by pablope
I thought Luther wanted to order the NT according to the date of writing, but was prevailed upon.
I’ve never heard that. But in any event, that’s not how things turned out.
I’ve done extensive studies into Luther and the canon over the last 10 years. I don’t recall ever hearing that.

Some years back now I put together Luther and the Canon of Scripture, which is a basic overview of the issues involved.

In terms of a detailed study on Luther’s Bible, the best treatment in English was put out by J.M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible. This book was very hard to track down, and typically $100 or more, but I recently found an on-line copy! If you have any questions on Luther’s German Bible, this is a credible and thorough source.

Regards,

James Swan
 
My friend do not let one’s poor view and misunderstanding of others faith and convinctions give you a poor view of all Catholics.

I have never said or have called Protestants non-Christians. I am not out to convert anyone because that happens within. Conversion is as a life-long process for all Christians (Catholic,Protestant,Orthodox,etc).

I am sorry someone had to clump all Protestants in the same basket.
…And this is that someone you refer to. No, I don’t have a misunderstanding of Protestant faiths, and no, I do not have a poor view. I like sometimes like using generalities and jabs to Protestants to see them scramble and try to defend sola scriptura. They break away, then break apart, then outright contradict each other. All the while trying to defend themselves with this Council of Trent stuff. …No, not all Protestants have the same beliefs, they don’t all watch 700 Club or Joel Osteen, and they don’t all pray for money. I mean, the Quakers don’t even have televisions.

…But it’s interesting, with all of your academic discussion on all these technicalities, you just ignore the elephant in the middle of the room: that Luther was a fallible man, and, because of his beliefs, whatever other beliefs they were based on, does not matter, interfered with the Canon. He did his part, and subsequent Protestants did their part, in marginalizing, and ommitting Scripture. Protestants like to get caught up in these psuedo-intellectual discussions and feel like they can justify Scripture tampering. You can’t.

Isn’t it funny what sola scriptura has led to? A shattered arm of Christianity? I mean, look at the Seventh Day Adventists, look at the Lutherans, look at the Quakers, look at the Amana Colonies, look at the Baptists, all codifying there own little interpretation of Scripture they swear to be the true interpretation, and that they alone will be most favored on Judgement Day. What a mess. And you defend your little branch of this mess saying, “We don’t pray for money,” “We have the image of Jesus in our Church,” “We still take the Host four times a year,” “We don’t have Jumbotrons.” Yes, but your Protestant brothers do. These are your religious brothers/ancestors. Don’t you have any will to defend them? Do you just turn your back on them and say, “We don’t care about them, I’m referring to Episcopalians. My own little world.”

See, you broke off, and then you turned into a spiritual mess. It’s no wonder you want so bad to attack and disprove our True Faith. It’s contempt. You feel the same thing that the Muslims feel: You want to identify loosely with Catholicism, but only enough to gain credibility and look legit. But then of course, you want to destroy us, make us illegal, persecute us. Just like Muslims.

Now you can say, “When did I want to make Catholicism Illegal?” Doesn’t matter. Your religious ancestors did, a couple of times. And , truth never changes through time. What was true then, is true now. And only the thin veneer of civilized restraint keeps that sentiment in check in this day and age. -And of course that much of the New World is Catholic and Britain would look silly trying to make it illegal in 2012, much less the American eastern seaboard.

You know why I don’t argue your little Council of Trent puzzles? Because it doesn’t matter. It’s a rabbit hole of Protestant logic. Who cares! I’d rather pray, enjoy the day, and live in the warm glow of Jesus’ True Church He founded. The True Church.

Now as for these comments about me trying to recruit you to convert to Catholicism. Please don’t be offended by my self-amusing remark. You just keep being whatever you are. --To be Catholic, you have to love Jesus and the Almighty with all your heart, your soul, your whole being. You have to cherish that Communion with the Eucharist like nothing else matters. You have to think so highly about all the Saints past that you would do anything to meet them in person. You have to love all of the Catholic traditions handed down for thousands of years. You have to love our liturgical calender with all of it’s special days and intricacies. You have to love the way we fought to free The Holy Land. You have to love the way we get special thanks from Judaism, the very oldest Faith, as brothers in the eyes of the Alpha and Omega. You have to feel thankful for all this to embrace Catholicsim.

And you’re a long way from it.
 
This would be a different discussion than that which I’ve raised (whether or not Luther is being treated with a double standard on the canon- which I think he is by many Roman Catholics who raise the canon issue).

Regardless, one of the conclusions my question leads to is that for Roman Catholics (according to Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta’s research), the canon is not exactly closed for Roman Catholics. What this would imply is that Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. Therefore, Roman Catholics still do not have certainty as to the complete canon. This though is a different topic.

Regards, James Swan
Thanks, James. This is interesting information.

No, Catholics cannot then be sure they have all the inspired books, but they do know the ones they have are inspired. I’m not sure this can be said for anyone else. I don’t know whether the Orthodox have a closed canon or not.
 
I’ve done extensive studies into Luther and the canon over the last 10 years. I don’t recall ever hearing that.

Some years back now I put together Luther and the Canon of Scripture, which is a basic overview of the issues involved.

In terms of a detailed study on Luther’s Bible, the best treatment in English was put out by J.M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible. This book was very hard to track down, and typically $100 or more, but I recently found an on-line copy! If you have any questions on Luther’s German Bible, this is a credible and thorough source.

Regards,

James Swan
Very interesting! You’ve obviously done a lot of work on the topic and you cite your sources (which are indeed sources), which is very welcome. I wish more people would do this.
 
Isn’t it funny what sola scriptura has led to? A shattered arm of Christianity? I mean, look at the Seventh Day Adventists, look at the Lutherans, look at the Quakers, look at the Amana Colonies, look at the Baptists, all codifying there own little interpretation of Scripture they swear to be the true interpretation, and that they alone will be most favored on Judgement Day. What a mess. And you defend your little branch of this mess saying, “We don’t pray for money,” “We have the image of Jesus in our Church,” “We still take the Host four times a year,” “We don’t have Jumbotrons.” Yes, but your Protestant brothers do. These are your religious brothers/ancestors. Don’t you have any will to defend them? Do you just turn your back on them and say, “We don’t care about them, I’m referring to Episcopalians. My own little world.”

See, you broke off, and then you turned into a spiritual mess. It’s no wonder you want so bad to attack and disprove our True Faith. It’s contempt. You feel the same thing that the Muslims feel: You want to identify loosely with Catholicism, but only enough to gain credibility and look legit. But then of course, you want to destroy us, make us illegal, persecute us. Just like Muslims.
I’m honestly curious, PatrickSanDiego, do you believe that Protestants are Christians?
 
=PatrickSanDiego;9279127]…And this is that someone you refer to. No, I don’t have a misunderstanding of Protestant faiths, and no, I do not have a poor view.** I like sometimes like using generalities and jabs to Protestants to see them scramble and try to defend sola scriptura**. They break away, then break apart, then outright contradict each other. All the while trying to defend themselves with this Council of Trent stuff. …No, not all Protestants have the same beliefs, they don’t all watch 700 Club or Joel Osteen, and they don’t all pray for money. I mean, the Quakers don’t even have televisions.
And this advances your cause that we “come home” how?
…But it’s interesting, with all of your academic discussion on all these technicalities, you just ignore the elephant in the middle of the room: that Luther was a fallible man, and, because of his beliefs, whatever other beliefs they were based on, does not matter, interfered with the Canon. He did his part, and subsequent Protestants did their part, in marginalizing, and ommitting Scripture. Protestants like to get caught up in these psuedo-intellectual discussions and feel like they can justify Scripture tampering. You can’t.
Here we go again. luther did nothng regarding scripture that was not permitted by the Church in his time.
Isn’t it funny what sola scriptura has led to? A shattered arm of Christianity? I mean, look at the Seventh Day Adventists, look at the Lutherans, look at the Quakers, look at the Amana Colonies, look at the Baptists, all codifying there own little interpretation of Scripture they swear to be the true interpretation, and that they alone will be most favored on Judgement Day. What a mess. And you defend your little branch of this mess saying, “We don’t pray for money,” “We have the image of Jesus in our Church,” “We still take the Host four times a year,” “We don’t have Jumbotrons.” Yes, but your Protestant brothers do. These are your religious brothers/ancestors. Don’t you have any will to defend them? Do you just turn your back on them and say, “We don’t care about them, I’m referring to Episcopalians. My own little world.”
They are your brothers/ancestors, too. Every non-catholic western communion has its roots, either directly or indirectly , in the Catholic Church. In fact, more have their roots in the CC than in Lutheranism, since virtually all do not have roots in Lutheranism, but rather the Reformed, or Baptist, or anabaptist.
See, you broke off, and then you turned into a spiritual mess. It’s no wonder you want so bad to attack and disprove our True Faith. It’s contempt.
Who is the “you” you are referring to? I can tell you that I am not in a spiritual mess.
You feel the same thing that the Muslims feel: You want to identify loosely with Catholicism, but only enough to gain credibility and look legit. But then of course, you want to destroy us, make us illegal, persecute us. Just like Muslims.
I want to indentify with all Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, you name it - because that was Christ’s call - that we all be one. Credibility and legit charges here are nonsense.
Now you can say, “When did I want to make Catholicism Illegal?” Doesn’t matter. Your religious ancestors did, a couple of times
Waiting for yor response regarding the Second Diet at Speyer, 1529. :coffeeread:
And , truth never changes through time. What was true then, is true now. And only the thin veneer of civilized restraint keeps that sentiment in check in this day and age. -And of course that much of the New World is Catholic and Britain would look silly trying to make it illegal in 2012, much less the American eastern seaboard.
Back up your charge with sources, please.
You know why I don’t argue your little Council of Trent puzzles? Because it doesn’t matter. It’s a rabbit hole of Protestant logic. Who cares! I’d rather pray, enjoy the day, and live in the warm glow of Jesus’ True Church He founded. The True Church.
And may you be blessed there, in word and sacrament. Seems like some pretty long posts for someone who doesn’t care.
Now as for these comments about me trying to recruit you to convert to Catholicism. Please don’t be offended by my self-amusing remark. You just keep being whatever you are. --To be Catholic, you have to love Jesus and the Almighty with all your heart, your soul, your whole being. You have to cherish that Communion with the Eucharist like nothing else matters. You have to think so highly about all the Saints past that you would do anything to meet them in person. You have to love all of the Catholic traditions handed down for thousands of years. You have to love our liturgical calender with all of it’s special days and intricacies. You have to love the way we fought to free The Holy Land. You have to love the way we get special thanks from Judaism, the very oldest Faith, as brothers in the eyes of the Alpha and Omega. You have to feel thankful for all this to embrace Catholicsim.
Great. Again, may you be blessed by these.
And you’re a long way from it.
:rolleyes:

Jon
 
…And this is that someone you refer to. No, I don’t have a misunderstanding of Protestant faiths, and no, I do not have a poor view. I like sometimes like using generalities and jabs to Protestants to see them scramble and try to defend sola scriptura. They break away, then break apart, then outright contradict each other. All the while trying to defend themselves with this Council of Trent stuff. …No, not all Protestants have the same beliefs, they don’t all watch 700 Club or Joel Osteen, and they don’t all pray for money. I mean, the Quakers don’t even have televisions.

…But it’s interesting, with all of your academic discussion on all these technicalities, you just ignore the elephant in the middle of the room: that Luther was a fallible man, and, because of his beliefs, whatever other beliefs they were based on, does not matter, interfered with the Canon. He did his part, and subsequent Protestants did their part, in marginalizing, and ommitting Scripture. Protestants like to get caught up in these psuedo-intellectual discussions and feel like they can justify Scripture tampering. You can’t.

Isn’t it funny what sola scriptura has led to? A shattered arm of Christianity? I mean, look at the Seventh Day Adventists, look at the Lutherans, look at the Quakers, look at the Amana Colonies, look at the Baptists, all codifying there own little interpretation of Scripture they swear to be the true interpretation, and that they alone will be most favored on Judgement Day. What a mess. And you defend your little branch of this mess saying, “We don’t pray for money,” “We have the image of Jesus in our Church,” “We still take the Host four times a year,” “We don’t have Jumbotrons.” Yes, but your Protestant brothers do. These are your religious brothers/ancestors. Don’t you have any will to defend them? Do you just turn your back on them and say, “We don’t care about them, I’m referring to Episcopalians. My own little world.”

See, you broke off, and then you turned into a spiritual mess. It’s no wonder you want so bad to attack and disprove our True Faith. It’s contempt. You feel the same thing that the Muslims feel: You want to identify loosely with Catholicism, but only enough to gain credibility and look legit. But then of course, you want to destroy us, make us illegal, persecute us. Just like Muslims.

Now you can say, “When did I want to make Catholicism Illegal?” Doesn’t matter. Your religious ancestors did, a couple of times. And , truth never changes through time. What was true then, is true now. And only the thin veneer of civilized restraint keeps that sentiment in check in this day and age. -And of course that much of the New World is Catholic and Britain would look silly trying to make it illegal in 2012, much less the American eastern seaboard.

You know why I don’t argue your little Council of Trent puzzles? Because it doesn’t matter. It’s a rabbit hole of Protestant logic. Who cares! I’d rather pray, enjoy the day, and live in the warm glow of Jesus’ True Church He founded. The True Church.

Now as for these comments about me trying to recruit you to convert to Catholicism. Please don’t be offended by my self-amusing remark. You just keep being whatever you are. --To be Catholic, you have to love Jesus and the Almighty with all your heart, your soul, your whole being. You have to cherish that Communion with the Eucharist like nothing else matters. You have to think so highly about all the Saints past that you would do anything to meet them in person. You have to love all of the Catholic traditions handed down for thousands of years. You have to love our liturgical calender with all of it’s special days and intricacies. You have to love the way we fought to free The Holy Land. You have to love the way we get special thanks from Judaism, the very oldest Faith, as brothers in the eyes of the Alpha and Omega. You have to feel thankful for all this to embrace Catholicsim.

And you’re a long way from it.
Understood.
 
I’ve done extensive studies into Luther and the canon over the last 10 years. I don’t recall ever hearing that.

Some years back now I put together Luther and the Canon of Scripture, which is a basic overview of the issues involved.

In terms of a detailed study on Luther’s Bible, the best treatment in English was put out by J.M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible. This book was very hard to track down, and typically $100 or more, but I recently found an on-line copy! If you have any questions on Luther’s German Bible, this is a credible and thorough source.

Regards,

James Swan
Thanks, James…

I do have a question for you, if you do not mind…what is your opinion of belief…should the DC books be included in the Bible?

And if you have a source or something…as to how the DC books were finally removed from Protestant Bibles. Is this only confined, initially that is, in the US and Europe (in the 1820s or so).

I find this interesting…“[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”

Looks like Luther recognized the canon of Carthage…am I right in concluding this?

Is it because of this distinctions that gave those later reformers the ammunition to remove the DC from the Bible?
 
If Michuta is correct, isn’t it possible that there exists a book that is canonical, but not currently in the canon? If it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, and this book isn’t simply hypothetical, don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to chastise Luther for making a personal opinion on canonicity previous to Trent, while you’re free to speculate on the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees previous to the Roman church finally settling the issue?

Think about it.

Regards, James Swan
There yet appears to be dispute over the Esdras issue, and the nomenclature is confusing, yet even regardless of that, by making parts of oral Tradition equal with Scripture then the RCC is essentially adding to the canon, and can add to it by channeling more of her amorphous Tradition into doctrine.

Meanwhile the real authority is the church of Rome herself, as what is binding it is only what she defines as being so, having defined herself to have that authority, though what all is binding and what it all means can be subject to some interpretation.
 
There yet appears to be dispute over the Esdras issue, and the nomenclature is confusing, yet even regardless of that, by making parts of oral Tradition equal with Scripture then the RCC is essentially adding to the canon, and can add to it by channeling more of her amorphous Tradition into doctrine.

Meanwhile the real authority is the church of Rome herself, as what is binding it is only what she defines as being so, having defined herself to have that authority, though what all is binding and what it all means can be subject to some interpretation.
First, your premise is false about Tradition & Scripture. Apostolic Tradition IS equal with Scripture. One cannot pit Scripture against Tradition because it was never believed or practiced in such a fashion. The church has never added anything into doctrine. The church did not define herself with having that authority because such authority was given to her by Christ Himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top