Sola Fide is driving me crazy!!

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

So unless one meets the above qualifications one should sit down, shut up, and take the Catholic Church’s word for everything?
If the Catholic Church says black is white, don’t question it?

Brian

Sure question. But as John Henry Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” The Church is protected by the holy Spirit against teaching error. If black is really black the holy Spirit will not allow the Church to teach that it’s white. He wants us to be assured of the truth. Without the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) one can only guess and hope that he is right without every knowing for sure.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[brianberean]

itsjustdave1988:

Brian,We’re talking about the actual documented collective judgment of the Church, the canon law of that magisterium as a whole, whereas you are talking about the theological opinions of a few.

Again, a broad brush that distorts real history:
B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity.
(B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 478. qtd. christainresources.com

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. **Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. ** The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

You said your view was supported by the “collective judgment of the Church, the canon law of that magisterium as a whole”, yet Metzger relates that this judgement was made by 50 some men of no great qualifications. You said my view was merely “theological opinions of a few” yet the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us the “few” would more accurately describe your view of history.

Jer 6:16 "Thus says the Lord: Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls."

Beautiful quote! However, concerning your claims, IMO the following quote from Cyprian is more relevent:“custom without truth is the antiquity of error”.

Brian

 

[Pax]

Well Brian, I am happy to say that we have custom with truth, and that these come with the keys and apostolic succession.

My problems with your line of reasoning are along the lines of others in this thread. I would add but the following: Everyone knows that the Jewish canon of scripture is settled. Everyone knows that the Catholic canon of scripture is settled, and we also know that the Protestant canon of scripture is also settled. It is also a fact that all of these canons were settled at different times in history. It is also a fact that there was disagreement within each of the three faith traditions as to what the canon should be. Everyone knows at least some of the history surrounding the finalization of each of these canons.

The history of the Catholic canon has an interesting and absolutely irrefutable thread that gives Catholics an extraordinary reason to be confident that the Catholic Canon is the correct one for Christians. All reputable scholars agree that Jesus and the disciples and almost everybody else at the time of Christ used the Greek Septuagint which contained the deuterocanonical books. Secondly the Councils of Rome (with its Decree of Pope Damasus), Hippo, and Carthage affirmed the deuterocanonicals. Then came the Council of Florence and ultimately Trent which once again confirmed the duetoros.

Now your arguments might have some merit if any Council of the Church deviated in the establishment of the Canon, but this did not happen. Jesus used the deuteros, the apostles and disciples used the deuteros and they were used throughout the Churches history and were confirmed over and over again. The Church never contradicted itself and never contradicted that which Jesus used. All other things pale by comparison.

Try this…the book of Hebrews 11:35 makes reference to resurrection in the context of OT martydom. The reference is to a story in 2 Maccabees chapter 7 and an evil king who martyred an entire family. The family knew that they would recieve resurrection.
If you search the entire OT canon in any non-Catholic bible you will not even find the word “resurrection.” But check out 2 Maccabees chapter 7 and you find the word and the story referenced in the Book of Hebrews. This is but one example of the NT writers citing the deuterocanonical books. They are part of scripture. They are the holy word of God and the Church has officially and consistently stated that this is so.

The reformers forced the issue to where the Church once again had to make the declaration at Trent. If the Church councils were inconsistent and if Jesus and the apostles had not used the Septuagint then maybe there would be room for doubt. Otherwise, I can’t see it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Again, a broad brush that distorts real history

This is merely a non-rebuttal which essentially states “I’m right, your wrong.”

If it is your intent to show that my assertion is contrary to the Catholic position, you are not succeeding. If you are merely disagreeing with the Catholic position, that’s certainly your perogative.

I’m familiar with what that article of the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia states. The very next passages curiously omitted by you I find much more telling than just the excerpt you provided:

And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception,** uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament.** There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Chritendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received. (Catholic Encyclopedia - Canon of the Old Testament, newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm )

Strange how throughout the history of Catholicism, without fail, the deuterocanonicals were read as Scripture, despite the “academic” (ie. speculative) opinions of the middle ages. When you consider the word, “few,” you ought to consider the context of 2000 years of scholarship, not just the “academic” opinions of the middle ages. Canon law from the 4th century, through the middle ages, before and after Trent held that the deuterocanonicals were equally canonical.

It remains clear that Protestants desparately quote from academic opinions of a few, while Catholics provide actual synodal and councilar canons are evidence of the constant and common consent of Catholicism regarding the canon of Scritpure.

Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject… a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. (ibid)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to **Protestant **scholar Phillip Schaff:

The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches

… This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.

This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.

(Schaff, P., History of the Christian Church, Ch. IX, § 118. Sources of Theology – Scripture and Tradition.)

 

[brianberean]

I’m familiar with what that article of the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia states. The very next passages curiously omitted by you I find much more telling than just the excerpt you provided:Strange how throughout the history of Catholicism, without fail, the deuterocanonicals were read as Scripture, despite the “academic” (ie. speculative) opinions of the middle ages. When you consider the word, “few,” you ought to consider the context of 2000 years of scholarship, not just the “academic” opinions of the middle ages. Canon law from the 4th century, through the middle ages, before and after Trent held that the deuterocanonicals were equally canonical.

“Curiously” omitted? What’s curious about it? I omitted that part because thats when the Catholic Encyclopedia went from citing history accurately to putting the Catholic spin on history. Basically they said what you are saying, “This is what happened, but ignore it because it contradicts previous councils and synods that agree with the current Catholic Church.” My previous analogy to Africans Americans being discriminated against in the south even after the official law said “seperate, but equal” fits your argument well.

FYI - my posting time has become very limited. I’ll still stop bye, but I probably won’t be able to keep up with multiple threads like I’ve been doing.

Brian

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I omitted that part because thats when the Catholic Encyclopedia went from citing history accurately to putting the Catholic spin on history.

I see. And yet you left the impression that the Catholic article was supporting your position. I’m glad that you clarified.

Since Protestant historians such as P. Schaff and J.N.D. Kelly also conclude the Catholic canon of Scripture was “fixed” in the 4th century, I don’t see your disagreement to be with a merely Catholic understanding of history of the canon, but more like one of many Protestant versus Protestant disagreements.