Sola Scriptura

[Tanner9188]

This is not true, the council merely reaffirmed that these books were equal to the rest of the canon.

Besides the New Testament Books of Hebrews, II Peter, II John, III John, James, Jude, and Revelation were considered non-canonical by many in the early Church, and by some early Protestants. Do you accept them? Why?

****First, you don’t even know your own history concerning your Church and the Apocrypha or you chose pick out the certain parts and leave out others; they were used by some for devotional purposes and not by others within your own Church, some considered them inspired and others did not within your own Church; but when the reformation came and and challenged the issues of praying to and for the dead, the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception and other challenges were made to the Church; this is when they decided to hastily Canonize 11 of the 14 Apocrypha books. This way anyone who denied the books as inspired and the issues contained within; then the Church pronounced anathema on them. There were many people martyred because they disagreed with the Councils decision.

Furthermore, from the Jewish perspectives the Hebrew canon was closed around 300 BC and did not include any of the extra books. The earliest Septuagint did not include the Apocrypha and overtime it was added.

I believe the Council of Trent was the best thing that happened to Chrsitianity for reasons I will not elaborate, but I thank God for it and am thankful for those who were willing to give their lives in defending God’s word.
**
God bless; got to run!**

 

[Fidelis]

****First, you don’t even know your own history concerning your Church and the Apocrypha or you chose pick out the certain parts and leave out others; they were used by some for devotional purposes and not by others within your own Church, some considered them inspired and others did not within your own Church; but when the reformation came and and challenged the issues of praying to and for the dead, the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception and other challenges were made to the Church; this is when they decided to hastily Canonize 11 of the 14 Apocrypha books. This way anyone who denied the books as inspired and the issues contained within; then the Church pronounced anathema on them. There were many people martyred because they disagreed with the Councils decision.****I’m afraid it is you, my friend, who are ignorant of history. The Council of Trent, as was correctly noted, merely reaffirmed, in the face of heresy, the 73 book canon that had been authoritively affirmed several times before that. to wit:

·Council of Rome, 382 AD, included all protocanonical AND deuterocanonical books (this is the first record we have, incidently, of all 27 New Testament books being affirmed as canonical. Protestants acknowledge this, but deny that same ccouncils authority to affirm the 73 OT books. Go figure.)
·73 book canon ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
·73 book canon infallibly declared at the Council of Florence (1441)
·73 book canon dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent in 1546.

Furthermore, from the Jewish perspectives the Hebrew canon was closed around 300 BC and did not include any of the extra books

 

[SemperReformada]

I’m afraid it is you, my friend, who are ignorant of history. The Council of Trent, as was correctly noted, merely reaffirmed, in the face of heresy, the 73 book canon that had been authoritively affirmed several times before that. to wit:

·Council of Rome, 382 AD, included all protocanonical AND deuterocanonical books (this is the first record we have, incidently, of all 27 New Testament books being affirmed as canonical. Protestants acknowledge this, but deny that same ccouncils authority to affirm the 73 OT books. Go figure.)
·73 book canon ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
·73 book canon infallibly declared at the Council of Florence (1441)
·73 book canon dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent in 1546.

. By then the Church had long been using the Septuagint version of Scripture that included all 73 books. Besides, in what way does 4th century Judaism have the right to definitively define the Christian canon?
It is true that there were several Septuagint versions with varying canons. What is crucial is that the early Church clearly used the canon that contained 46 books, as a careful reading of the New Testament and the Apostolic and other Early Church Fathers will affirm…

I don’t think it’s quite the slam dunk as you make it out.

For example, after Hippo and Carthage which were provinical councils with no authority to settle the issue of the canon, Augustine wrote:

Augustine:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8

Certainly it appears that Augustine who accepted the canonical status of the dc’s recognized that Hippo and Carthage had no authority to settle the matter.

The Vulgate which the church sent out contained Jerome’s prologues which were very negative regarding the canonical status of the dc’s.

The gloss oridinaire (the main scriptural commentary of the middle ages) rejected the canonical status of the dc’s and instead accepted Jerome’s canon.

Even at Trent we see debate as to the status of the dc’s.

The point being that the canonical status of the dc’s was not an issue that was settled until the time of the reformation. Some fathers and theologians accepted the dc’s some didn’t but the issue was far from a settled issue between the time of councils of Hippo and Carthage and Trent.

 

[guanophore]

Only = only. These same people you list up there affirm tradition. If they do, then Sola Scritpura from their point of view can not be used as a supported, because its ONLY.

• Michael

But they really don’t mean it that way. It means the only “final” authority of rule.

However, I do think there is a flaw of logic. There are so MANY "alone"s!

faith alone
grace alone
Christ alone
God’s glory alone
scripture alone, etc etc.

 

[guanophore]

Again, you can disagree with the doctrines that Augustine put forward, but you can not say he was a supporter of Sola Scriptura.

• Michael

Sure you can! All one must do is apply the same rule to his writings that is used to “derive” SS from the Bible. Focus only on certain of the verses, and be sure to exclude those that indicate anything to the contrary.

 

[guanophore]

As a Lutheran, I hear Catholics say Luther wanted to remove the New Testament Books all the time; however, I believe it is an urban myth. I have never seen anything quoted beyond the prefaces in Luther’s Bible which if people would read them instead of taking short quotes specifically says he does not desire to remove them.

I think his original translation, with Hebrews, Jude, Revelation and James (which he called "an epistle of straw) to relegated to an appendix speaks clearly for itself.
He did this because he considered certain books previously accepted by the Church as canon to be substandard.

Unless you have an original source quote, which if you do, I would much appreciate, I’m afraid I have to see you as mostly a parrot.

You can read his arguement with Melanthion in any good history, where his friend and colleague finally succeeded with earnest pleading for him not to throw the books out.
Protestants should be very thankful to Melancthon because without his earnest and intense efforts, the Protesant bible would be even more truncated than it is!
.

But sure is popular among Catholics.

Not really. What is popular among Catholics is the Alexandrian septuagint, because it was used by Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

It is interesting that you bring up the Sadducees. We know that there were also the Pharisees in Jesus time. Israel was split into at least two factions with different beliefs. Did Jesus condemn this division and declare one of the sects heretical? Did God want Israel to be divided or did He accept it as what sinful man had done and still consider both sects as His People?
If God did that then, why would He would not now accept the different branches of Christianity as all parts of the Church, even though He would have preferred us united?

Basically, He did. When the Samaritan woman put forth the primacy of the mountain, He affirmed “salvation is of the Jews”. Then when the Sadducees confronted Him about things contained in parts of the canon they did not approve, He replied “you know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God”.

No, He did not accept division as "what sinful man had done’ but called them all to unity, by founding One Church, One Body. His prayer for unity among His people leaves no room for division. Such a suggestion is a feeble attempt to excuse the sin of separation.

 

[guanophore]

**
The Catholic Church added 7 of the 9 Apocrypha books at the Council of Trent in the 1500’s; probably for reasons more to do with the reformers than the word of God than the scrutiny of canonizations; otherwise they would have never been part of any Bible. this is why i used the correct number, which is 66 in my Book.**

This is false, Tanner. You will find, if you are open to history, that there are no Bibles published before that time without these books. These books have been part of the Catholic Bible since it was defined by the catholic Church in 382. All you need to do is read some brief history of the development of the canon.

They were not considered “apocryphal” either, until the Reformers named them as such, but the Deuterocanon (second canon) produced after the exile of Israel from the promised land.

You are correct, though, the proclamation of the canon was related to the heretics removing the books. If you study the history of the Church, you will find that all such proclamations occur in response to heresy. It does not mean these beliefs were not held prior to the proclamation. It just means that the doctrine was never questioned or denied to an extent that a dogmatic statement was needed.

I hope and pray that you are honest enough to look at history on this point. I challenge you to find a pre-reformation bible that did not contain the books.

 

[Tanner9188]

I’m afraid it is you, my friend, who are ignorant of history. The Council of Trent, as was correctly noted, merely reaffirmed, in the face of heresy, the 73 book canon that had been authoritively affirmed several times before that. to wit:

·Council of Rome, 382 AD, included all protocanonical AND deuterocanonical books (this is the first record we have, incidently, of all 27 New Testament books being affirmed as canonical. Protestants acknowledge this, but deny that same ccouncils authority to affirm the 73 OT books. Go figure.)
·73 book canon ratified by the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
·73 book canon infallibly declared at the Council of Florence (1441)
·73 book canon dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent in 1546.

. By then the Church had long been using the Septuagint version of Scripture that included all 73 books. Besides, in what way does 4th century Judaism have the right to definitively define the Christian canon?
It is true that there were several Septuagint versions with varying canons. What is crucial is that the early Church clearly used the version of the Septuagint containing the canon that contained 46 books, as a careful reading of the New Testament and the Apostolic and other Early Church Fathers will affirm…

**The claims of Roman Catholic apologists are spurious. In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).
This is also confirmed by Yves Congar:…an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 38).

According to Congar and the New Catholic Encylopedia the first infallible decision on the authoritative declaration of the canon, from a Roman Catholic perspective, was the Council of Trent, not Hippo and Carthage. The English translator of the Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder, O.P., wrote:

The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the reason the canon was not definitively settled for the Church until the Council of Trent is that the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. Jerome’s perspective on the canon became the dominant view throughout the history of the western church from his time all the way up to the eve of the Council of Trent.

This is all I care to post concerning the matter because they do not pass the tests on canonization; therefore are not the word of God.**

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

This is all I care to post concerning the matter because they do not pass the tests on canonization; therefore are not the word of God.

what is the test on canonization/what are the criteria of validity of canonical works? what is the authority for the test?

 

[SyCarl]

Basically, He did. When the Samaritan woman put forth the primacy of the mountain, He affirmed “salvation is of the Jews”. Then when the Sadducees confronted Him about things contained in parts of the canon they did not approve, He replied “you know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God”.

No, He did not accept division as "what sinful man had done’ but called them all to unity, by founding One Church, One Body. His prayer for unity among His people leaves no room for division. Such a suggestion is a feeble attempt to excuse the sin of separation.

The Sadducees were not the Samaritans. They were primarily the Jewish priestly and upper classes while the Pharisees were the forerunners of the modern Rabbinic Judaism.

 

[guanophore]

First, you don’t even know your own history concerning your Church and the Apocrypha or you chose pick out the certain parts and leave out others; they were used by some for devotional purposes and not by others within your own Church, some considered them inspired and others did not within your own Church;

On the contrary, Tanner, we know this quite well. This is not a problem for Catholics, who know that right doctrine is not determined by majority rule, or in this case, by th epractices of a very small minority. The Truth in Catholicism is determined not by opinion and popular practice,but by what has been revealed to the Church by God.

We know the correct canon because that is the one that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. We know that these books are not “apocryphal”, but are Deuterocanonical, and have been included in every Catholic Bible from the beginning of the bible.

Of course it it true that there have been individual Catholics that have departed from the Apostolic Truth, just as there are today. They do not determine what is right.

the reformation came and and challenged the issues of praying to and for the dead, the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception and other challenges were made to the Church; this is when they decided to hastily Canonize 11 of the 14 Apocrypha books.

It seems likely that this is what you were taught, but it is not true.

It is true that whenever there is a wholesale departure from the faith that we have received from the Apostles, councils have found it necessary to make proclaimations about the Truth.

You will find this is the case when you study the early heresies. I suggest you begin with the first seven ecumenical councils.

This way anyone who denied the books as inspired and the issues contained within; then the Church pronounced anathema on them. There were many people martyred because they disagreed with the Councils decision.

It is true that it is the duty of the Church to define the Truth, and to warn the faithful about the consequences when people depart from it. However, there are many other factors involved in the deaths of those who abandoned the Apostolic faith.

Furthermore, from the Jewish perspectives the Hebrew canon was closed around 300 BC and did not include any of the extra books. The earliest Septuagint did not include the Apocrypha and overtime it was added.

I hope that you will put in the time and attention to learn the truth about what you have stated here. I also encourage you to consider looking at the faith of the Eastern Orthodox, who also received the Septuagint from the Apostles, and were not involved in the Reformation.

I believe the Council of Trent was the best thing that happened to Chrsitianity for reasons I will not elaborate, but I thank God for it and am thankful for those who were willing to give their lives in defending God’s word.
God bless; got to run!

Separation and division in the Body of Christ is never good.

 

[SemperReformada]

This is false, Tanner. You will find, if you are open to history, that there are no Bibles published before that time without these books. These books have been part of the Catholic Bible since it was defined by the catholic Church in 382. All you need to do is read some brief history of the development of the canon.

They were not considered “apocryphal” either, until the Reformers named them as such, but the Deuterocanon (second canon) produced after the exile of Israel from the promised land.

You are correct, though, the proclamation of the canon was related to the heretics removing the books. If you study the history of the Church, you will find that all such proclamations occur in response to heresy. It does not mean these beliefs were not held prior to the proclamation. It just means that the doctrine was never questioned or denied to an extent that a dogmatic statement was needed.

I hope and pray that you are honest enough to look at history on this point. I challenge you to find a pre-reformation bible that did not contain the books.

Guanaphore,

From the time of Carthage and Hippo up until Trent there is plenty of evidence that the dc’s were considered apocryphal.

The Vulgate was sent out by the church along with the prologues to the dc’s which expressed Jerome’s concerns about their canonocity. In the section under OT canon at newadvent.org there is a section stating that Jerome’s prolouges caused many to doubt the canonical status of the dc’s.

Augustine didn’t see the councils of Carthage and Hippo as settling the case. In fact he wrote:

Augustine:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

NPNF1, Vol. 2, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8.

Augustine gave advice to determine which books were truly canonical because even after Carthage and Hippo there was no consensus. He certainly did not appeal to either Carthage or Hippo as the final say and why should he since the two councils were provincial?

The major scripture commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, relegated the dc’s as having a lower place than the canonical scriptures.

Even at Trent there was debate as to the canonical status of the dc’s.

As to whether any bible before the reformation lacked the dc’s, that’s not really the issue is it? It’s my understanding that Luther’s bible contained a section for the dc’s but it’s clear that he rejected their canonocity. Simply including a particular book between two covers isn’t what’s important with regards to canonocity or else you would have no problem with Luther’s bible.

What’s improtant is how the books, in this case the dc’s, are presented within a certain bible. The Vulgate rejected their canonocity. The glossa rejected their canonicty as well as several other commentaries published between the time of Carthage/Hippo and the reformation.

Is there a major bible or scripture commentary published (published may be a bad term) between Carthage/Hippo that gave full canonical status to the dc’s?

 

[guanophore]

new Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent

Well, news flash, Tanner, the New Catholic Encyclopedia does not define Catholic doctrine either. Not only that, the Latin Rite, the only one of 23 Catholic Rites that was involved in a dispute about this with the Reformers, may have officially settled the matter at Trent, but this did not affect the other 22 Rites around the world that never had such a dispute.

Catholicsm is not “Roman” Tanner.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture.

St. Jerome, valuable a theologian and scripture scholar as he was, did not have the authority to define canon. In the end, he set aside his personal opinions and accepted the judgement of the Church in this matter.

The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books

The individual doubts of persons, however scholarly, do not create a lack of clarity for the Church. The Church has constantly taught that the Alexandrian Septuagint, and the 27 books defined many times before the Council in Rome and the Decretum Gelasium.

I suggest a neutral source, such as wikipedia.

According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.

This is quite true, and is clear, even from the non-catholic article cited above, what the Church embraced from the early centuries.

This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.

this is the writers opinion, of course. Perhaps he accepted the decree of Trent,but did not accept the early decrees? The Catholic Encyclopedia is not an infallible document of the Church, and therefore, is not preserved from error.

However I will agree that an infallible proclaimation was not needed prior to that time, as everyone accepted the canon as it was defined by the year 382 and before.

That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).

This is just false. There has never been such “uncertainty” in the Eastern Catholic Church, Orthodox, or Oriental Churches. This is a peculiarity of the Latin Rite, and was confined to Europe.

Besides, people’s uncertainty is not what defines the Truth. The Trinity was not defined either, and there was plenty of uncertainty and heresy about the nature of Christ. That did not change at all that the Aposltes taught the Trinity.

This is also confirmed by Yves Congar:…an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 38).

I think you will find that there are plenty of lists defined, as referenced in Wiki article above, and other more accurate Catholic records. Certainly there has always been dissention about the Truth.

In any case, I am not sure what this has to do with SS?

the first infallible decision on the authoritative declaration of the canon, from a Roman Catholic perspective, was the Council of Trent, not Hippo and Carthage.

Well, yes. The other councils were local. In addition, infallible proclaimations are not made on issues that are accepted by the faithful. One was not needed until the mass apostasy occurred in Europe.

One way to check this is to look at the readings of the Mass. The Deuterocanonoical books have been read at the Mass since the beginning. No books made it into the canon that were not read at Mass.

The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17).

I guess the most helpful way for you to understand the relative importance of this is to compare it to the word Trinity. First, find the word in your Bible, then we can go from there.

the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. Jerome’s perspective on the canon became the dominant view throughout the history of the western church from his time all the way up to the eve of the Council of Trent.

Dissent from Church teaching does not define the Truth. Truth is defined not by the lack of clarity among theologians, cardinals,a nd bishops. Truth is defined (for Catholics) by the revelation of God.

This is all I care to post concerning the matter because they do not pass the tests on canonization; therefore are not the word of God.

Well, I can accept your erroneous conclusion, based on erroneous premises,but I am still at a loss as to how it relates to SS. Are you trying to prove that the Church does not have the authority to define what is canon, and what is not?

 

[guanophore]

The Sadducees were not the Samaritans. They were primarily the Jewish priestly and upper classes while the Pharisees were the forerunners of the modern Rabbinic Judaism.

Of course! My point is, that when Jesus came across division among the faithful, He did not fail to address it, and make it clear who was in the wrong.

 

[guanophore]

This is all I care to post concerning the matter because they do not pass the tests on canonization; therefore are not the word of God.

I hope this is true, especially for this thread, as it seems to be off topic. In any case, however, it is against the forum rules for you to cut and paste from other websites without citing your sources. Having been around this bush before, I recognize this clip. If you do decide to post such quotes in the future, I hope you will be honest enough to cite your source.

 

[Tanner9188]

I hope this is true, especially for this thread, as it seems to be off topic. In any case, however, it is against the forum rules for you to cut and paste from other websites without citing your sources. Having been around this bush before, I recognize this clip. If you do decide to post such quotes in the future, I hope you will be honest enough to cite your source.

T**here were some sources cited, some copy and paste w/o source and I also edit things for my own, but with that said; we have Elvis to cite sources for everybody. Some cites i use allow permission and encourage to use their material. Since you are familiar with the passages because of your time spent in the bush; perhaps you would like to cite the source. Also, if it is a website link; that would be “said” source.

I know you are trying to be charitable; but at the same time, don’t be a hypocrite.

Who Guanophore has not copy and pasted to assist their point without always, 100%, citing the source among you, let him {be the} first to throw a stone at me.

God bless you and hope you all have enjoyed the 4th of July weekend where ever you are!**

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

what is the test on canonization/what are the criteria of validity of canonical works? what is the authority for the test?

Tanner, could you answer this for me?

 

[Tanner9188]

what is the test on canonization/what are the criteria of validity of canonical works? what is the authority for the test?

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3. Does the book tell the truth about God, without error, falsehoods or contradiction?
4. Does the book manifest a divine capacity to transform lives?
5. Was the book accepted as God’s Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?
   A good example of the last was Peter confirming Pauls writings as being inspired by God.

God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church recognized it under inspiration of the Author. In other words, God’s Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception–it “stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89)–and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.

Although it might vary from the Catholic perspective, but from all I have read and understand there were 5 criteria used to make the discovery.

Blessings!

 

[Tanner9188]

On the contrary, Tanner, we know this quite well. This is not a problem for Catholics, who know that right doctrine is not determined by majority rule, or in this case, by th epractices of a very small minority. The Truth in Catholicism is determined not by opinion and popular practice,but by what has been revealed to the Church by God.

We know the correct canon because that is the one that was used by Jesus and the Apostles. We know that these books are not “apocryphal”, but are Deuterocanonical, and have been included in every Catholic Bible from the beginning of the bible.

Of course it it true that there have been individual Catholics that have departed from the Apostolic Truth, just as there are today. They do not determine what is right.

It seems likely that this is what you were taught, but it is not true.

It is true that whenever there is a wholesale departure from the faith that we have received from the Apostles, councils have found it necessary to make proclaimations about the Truth.

You will find this is the case when you study the early heresies. I suggest you begin with the first seven ecumenical councils.

It is true that it is the duty of the Church to define the Truth, and to warn the faithful about the consequences when people depart from it. However, there are many other factors involved in the deaths of those who abandoned the Apostolic faith.

I hope that you will put in the time and attention to learn the truth about what you have stated here. I also encourage you to consider looking at the faith of the Eastern Orthodox, who also received the Septuagint from the Apostles, and were not involved in the Reformation.

Separation and division in the Body of Christ is never good.

Look all you can do is “parrot” the revisionist history invented by men; you are not interested in true history; only the parts that support your preconceived notions invented by men. I’ll give you one example the Septuagint, evolutionized and did not originally contain the Deuterocanonical; we know the Jews as far back as 300 BC rejected the additions ; then Jerome came to town. We will all live by the Truth or die by the Truth; I chose life. I am really out of here this time for everyones sake and my own sanity.