SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Pwrlftr]

If Trent added the deuterocanonicals to the Bible, as the OP claims, then how is it possible that Martin Luther removed them from the Bible about 20 years before the council? If they weren’t in the Bible before Trent, then how could he have taken them out?

In Christ,
Rand

When a protestant says anything about your church adding books to the bible or canon they are most likely saying that since God didn’t inspire the 7 deutero’s your church has added them to the canon of inspired books.

If they use Trent as the line of demarcation there is reason to do so.

From newadvent.org
Catholie Encyclopedia:

The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.

From the above text we see quite clearly that:
a.) Trent was the first infallible declaration of the canon. The earlier councils were not ecumenical and therefore not infallible.

b.) Trent was also the first council to address this issue to the church universal. The councils of Hippo and Carthage, for example, were provinicial councils.

It is for the above reasons that most will pick Trent as the point when they say your church added the deutero’s to the canon.

Luther used the canon of Jerome and he certainly wasn’t he first to do so. From Melito up until the council of Trent itself we see that the issue regarding the canon of the OT wasn’t settled with regards to the deuteros.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James,

If SS showed up relatively late on the scene I wouldn’t think that would be an issue for a catholic since your church clearly believes in the development of doctrine.

It’s not like you can search the ECF’s for every doctrine you have and get a trail back to either Jesus or the apostles.

It certainly becomes an issue when it comes from outside the leadership of the Church and is clearly used as a mechanism to hijack the authority of the church and divide the church. We Christians might be accused of hijacking the full body of Judaic teaching found in the Old Testament that came 2000 years before us but that was an inheritance given to us IN FULL by the authority of Jesus himself since he fulfilled old testament scripture. God through the workings of His divinity is the only one authorized to split his church and prune away branches of error that do not remain in Him and thus bear no fruit (and are tossed into the fires of Gehenna as rubbage). But man is not authorized to willy nilly assault The Church through a claim of “enlightenment” to divide it and split it against itself. Anyone who does that is in direct opposition to God and the authority He handed down through the apostles and their successors. Thus Protestantism has NO LINE OF AUTHORITY, NONE WHATSOEVER, to use as a legitimate defense for its actions in dividing God’s Church against itself and God’s Will. It should become absurd at face value to any “enlightened” person that there can ever be a wild justification for fabricating a completely non-biblical basis for revolting against God or His Church. How can anyone be taken as rational in insisting on a scripture only basis for doctrine when that same scripture insists on a taught oral tradition and also lacks any formula for ever authorizing the hijacking of it’s teaching and the rejection of its authority? The answer is its impossible to maintain any semblance of rationality and plausibility since the very specific and narrow standard that Protestantism seeks to use does not itself even give them an authority to rebel against The Church nor its teachings to bootstrap itself. Thus Protestantism is non-biblican and non-scriptural at face value.

Also, you act as though the Church today is not just as inspired and vibrant as the early Church when you mentioned that not all doctrine can be traced to the ECFs. Do you think the Holy Spirit just arbitrarily chose to indwell with men of the first few generations of its formation and then go forever silent. Of course not. What we have today is a rich doctrine that has matured and evolved as the fledgling church first crawled forth like a baby and learned to walk. When forming Doctrine the Church has always insisted that there never be a contradiction to scripture - and that condition remains.

Let’s face it - Protestants and other cults are rebels against God in the same way that the fallen away angels were rebels. Its the same old simple matter of pride and unwilliness to serve God in the way one privately wants to serve. That is by definition seperation from God’s will. Protestants while they remained in The Church had the truth. But the same did not want to trust in the teachings of The Church nor its leaders and elected to rebel against The Church. Thus when their rebellion failed and was put down they were seperated from the body of Christ as heretics and so remain in that status outside the full communion and protection of mother Church. We know the consequence of being seperated from God’s grace. That is a well known formula that is present all through scripture to have the certainty for moral decay, accelerative spiritual whithering away from the vine of truth that will never bears fruit. Such bracken becomes useless to God and is eventually consumed outright. Thus the true Church weeps for its lost brethern and prays incessantly that they reenter the body of Christ in union with Christ’s vicar on earth before they become completely spiritualy blind to their own condition and can not call on God’s mercy to get back.

James

 

[VociMike]

a.) Trent was the first infallible declaration of the canon. The earlier councils were not ecumenical and therefore not infallible.

b.) Trent was also the first council to address this issue to the church universal. The councils of Hippo and Carthage, for example, were provinicial councils.

It is for the above reasons that most will pick Trent as the point when they say your church added the deutero’s to the canon.

Then you must also hold that Trent was the point at which the Catholic Church added the 4 Gospels to the canon. Which leaves your whole argument looking rather ridiculous.

 

[guanophore]

Hey CM,

This question is based on your above statement but I would like anyone here to answer this.

Often times it is said that the apostles and Jesus used the Alexandrian canon but no evidence is given as to what the Alexandrian canon is.

Do we know anything about the supposed Alexandrian canon?

a.) Are there any extant manuscripts of the Alexandrian canon?
i.) If so, what are the manuscripts entitled?
ii.) If so, when do the manuscripts date to?

b.) Does any Jewish source (rabbi, historian, philosopher, etc.) roughly of the same time period we are talking about list the books of the Alexandrian canon?

It’s interesting that people often make the claim that Jesus and the apostles used this canon but the earliest mansucripts of the septuagint we have only date back to around the 4th century and they were Christian copies of the septuagint.

We know Melito who lived in the middle of the second century listed the canon he received from the Jews and didn’t include the deutero’s. We know that Philo lived in and among the Alexandrian Jews and he didn’t ever list the deutero’s. We know that Josephus didn’t include the deutero’s in what he listed the canon of the Jews being.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if anyone can provide proof tha the Alexandrian canon ever existed.

It is regrettable that more documents from that time from many sources were not preserved. I think the Church went out of Her way to destroy heretical works, so the only way we know what heresies were found is by the Catholic refutation of them.

We accept the testimony of those scholars who actually saw and used the documents.

We also accept the testimony of Jesus and the Apostles, who quoted from this collection.

 

[guanophore]

James,

If SS showed up relatively late on the scene I wouldn’t think that would be an issue for a catholic since your church clearly believes in the development of doctrine.

The priniciple of development is based on the fact that people are sometimes slow to understand things. However, the Divine Deposit of Faith does not change.

Jude 3
he faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ.

It’s not like you can search the ECF’s for every doctrine you have and get a trail back to either Jesus or the apostles.

On the contrary, this is exactly the case.

 

[Newbie2]

I agree with an earlier post that surmised the the OP wasn’t really all that interested in the answers…as evidenced by the lack of follow-up and discussion.

In other forums, such posters are termed “trolls”, but there’s got to be a more charitable way of referring to posters that just want to cause a calamity.

 

[Tomster]

I agree with an earlier post that surmised the the OP wasn’t really all that interested in the answers…as evidenced by the lack of follow-up and discussion.

In other forums, such posters are termed “trolls”, but there’s got to be a more charitable way of referring to posters that just want to cause a calamity.

“You don’t really expect to get answers to your questions do you?” - Old Scholar, post # 1 on this thread.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Wow!

So far I can count 21 different posters responding to my questions. That’s great, but I need time just to read them all, much less answer them. I will answer them all, given enough time, but I didn’t expect the entire forum to hit me all at once. I still have posts on other threads to answer as I had to take a 10 day trip out of state away from my computer, but I will eventually answer them all.

I do not sit at my computer all day—I actually have a life, so if you are patient, I will certainly respond. I am very anxious to read each and every one of the replies. However, I do not want to respond to any who are not honestly giving me their opinion but are simply trying to trash me. My mission is to learn and perhaps give a little information some may not know.

As I have stated on this forum before,I believe this is the best way to learn—else I would simply keep reading…But seriously, how often do we get to really discuss religion in person—hence the forums.???

 

[Pwrlftr]

The priniciple of development is based on the fact that people are sometimes slow to understand things. However, the Divine Deposit of Faith does not change.

Jude 3
he faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ.

**On the contrary, this is exactly the case. **

Okay, please show me any first or second century writer who wrote of the assumption.

 

[VociMike]

Okay, please show me any first or second century writer who wrote of the assumption.

I’m sure you know that arguing from lack of evidence, especially lack of written evidence from 2000 years ago, proves nothing.

But, to turn your question around, please show where the Church ever declared the Assumption to be false. Surely, if it sprang forth one day as a new heresy, the Church would have denounced it, and continued to denounce it. So produce such denouncement, if you can.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then you must also hold that Trent was the point at which the Catholic Church added the 4 Gospels to the canon. Which leaves your whole argument looking rather ridiculous.

Go back and re-read my post. I simply explained why some use Trent as the point at which your church added the deutero’s. There was no “argument”.

The point which you either missed or I didn’t do well enough in explaining is that if God inspired only “X” number of books and your church recognizes as scripture “X+7” books…your church added 7 books.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’m sure you know that arguing from lack of evidence, especially lack of written evidence from 2000 years ago, proves nothing.

But, to turn your question around, please show where the Church ever declared the Assumption to be false. Surely, if it sprang forth one day as a new heresy, the Church would have denounced it, and continued to denounce it. So produce such denouncement, if you can.

The other poster seems to believe that all your church’s various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can’t. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide “proof” of this, post it. If you can’t, which you apparently can’t judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

 

[Tomster]

The other poster seems to believe that all your church’s various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can’t. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide “proof” of this, post it. If you can’t, which you apparently can’t judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[Pwrlftr]

www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

I’ve read a lot of Catholic links that end up not proving anything. Can you post what you consider your main point to be?

 

[VociMike]

Go back and re-read my post. I simply explained why some use Trent as the point at which your church added the deutero’s. There was no “argument”.

And I simply explained why such logic, whoever uses it, doesn’t hold up. If one says that Trent added the deuterocanonicals, then one must also say that Trent added the 4 Gospels (and every other book).

The point which you either missed or I didn’t do well enough in explaining is that if God inspired only “X” number of books and your church recognizes as scripture “X+7” books…your church added 7 books.

And who is qualified to say which books are inspired by God?

Obviously we see the issue differently: If God inspired “X” number of books and your tradition recognizes as scripture “X-7” books…your tradition removed 7 books.

 

[Tomster]

The answer to your question in post # 52.

 

[VociMike]

The other poster seems to believe that all your church’s various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can’t. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide “proof” of this, post it. If you can’t, which you apparently can’t judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

Lack of Church condemnation of a teaching, when it first appears in the surviving written record, is proof that the teaching existed before that time, and by extension (applying the same argument incrementally), all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The answer to your question in post # 52.

I’ve read the article at newadvent.org and didn’t see the proof that you apparently think is there. Please tell me what proof do you have that the assumption was taught in the first century. I’d rather not re-read an article that I’ve already reviewed.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Lack of Church condemnation of a teaching, when it first appears in the surviving written record, is proof that the teaching existed before that time, and by extension (applying the same argument incrementally), all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

Okay, other than presenting a “lack of proof” as evidence, do you have anything else…slightly more concrete?

 

[Tomster]

I’ve read the article at newadvent.org and didn’t see the proof that you apparently think is there. Please tell me what proof do you have that the assumption was taught in the first century. I’d rather not re-read an article that I’ve already reviewed.

In order to understand the dogma of the Assumption you must first examine the dogma of Mary the Mother of God.