The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[Porknpie]

The Jerome argument makes me so sleepy.

He deferred and was obedient to The Church and became a DC advocate.

 

[guanophore]

Not by the Catholic church, hence the need for Trent.

Ok, so what Church was that, the one that held councils at Hippo, Carthage, and Rome? What Church do you imagine Athansius belonged to?

Dogmatic proclamations are made to combat rampant heresies. They do not say anything new about the Catholic faith, but they are formulated to make a clear delination between Truth, and Heresy. The fault in your reasoning here is can be made plain when we go back to dogmatic proclamations of earlier councils, such as the Council of Ephesus. Mary was given the name “Theotokos”(God bearer). This was not a new concept for the Catholic Church, but it created a clear demarcation between Catholic faith, and Gnostic and Arian faith, that denied the divinity of Christ, or denied His humanity. Trent reiterated the canons as the Church continually accepted them from the second century. If you are willing to look at the historical evidence, you will see that Athansius used the term “canon” to define the collection of books that has been used continually since that time.

I dont need to believe anything about the bible canon except for what is in real history.

I agree. What is mysterious is that you seem to reject the testimony of history.

My church bishops and pastors are successors of the apostles no less than any church. Prove me wrong.

I am sure that you and your leaders believe this, and it is comfortable for you. There is no need to concern yourself with what the Apostles actually taught and practiced.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Not by the Catholic church, hence the need for Trent.

 

[po18guy]

Trent set the canon in concrete. The books had been used by both Catholic and Orthodox since day 1. Trent, as with many of the councils, answered the heresy of the rebels.

 

[submariner2]

The Jerome argument makes me so sleepy.

He deferred and was obedient to The Church and became a DC advocate.

Porkpie,

Source? The plain fact that he describes right in the Vulgate that the Ds were apochrypha refutes your assertion.

The Catholic church never taught otherwise until Trent.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Ok, so what Church was that, the one that held councils at Hippo, Carthage, and Rome? What Church do you imagine Athansius belonged to?

guano,

Belonging to the Catholic church does not mean you speak for the entire church. That was done at Trent.

Dogmatic proclamations are made to combat rampant heresies. They do not say anything new about the Catholic faith, but they are formulated to make a clear delination between Truth, and Heresy. The fault in your reasoning here is can be made plain when we go back to dogmatic proclamations of earlier councils, such as the Council of Ephesus. Mary was given the name “Theotokos”(God bearer). This was not a new concept for the Catholic Church, but it created a clear demarcation between Catholic faith, and Gnostic and Arian faith, that denied the divinity of Christ, or denied His humanity. Trent reiterated the canons as the Church continually accepted them from the second century. If you are willing to look at the historical evidence, you will see that Athansius used the term “canon” to define the collection of books that has been used continually since that time.

He could not speak for the entire church, hence Trent.

I am sure that you and your leaders believe this, and it is comfortable for you. There is no need to concern yourself with what the Apostles actually taught and practiced.

I get my info on history from the historians, Catholic and protestant alike. They say the same thing anyway.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

If the Catholic church did not have a canon, how did Martin Luther get his canon?

It was the traditionally used canon from the beginning except for the Deuterocanicals. There was still much disagreement on that in the Catholic church since Jerome coined it as apochrypha and noted it as such in the Vulagate. Trent settled it for Catholics.

The only source for his canon would have been the Catholic church! After all, he was a Catholic priest and the canon he learned was from the Church. But you turn around and say the church didn’t have a canon until Trent!

Not officially. The Deuterocanicals was still a source of contention until Trent.

There would have been no need for Trent except for Luther who wanted to trim the canon down.

No official canon to turn down. Reformers supported Jerome and argued against using Ds for that reason, hence the need for Trent for Catholics to include the Ds in official scripture.

Okay, Trent defined the canon for Catholics, but do the Protestants have a canon? If there was no canon until Trent, and Protestants do not accept Trent, then Protestants do not have a canon!

We accept it in the same way the Catholic church did for centuries before Trent except that most protestants do not accept the Ds for doctrines whereas it was a dispute in the Catholic church before Trent. Many protestant bibles include the Ds.

Question. What does the word apochrypha mean? What did it mean for Jerome

It meant it was edifying but not to be used for doctrine. That was the argument of the Reformers. Hence the need for the Catholics to include it in the Canon in order to use it without argument.

Rob

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not by the Catholic church, hence the need for Trent.

Hmmm…

SESSION 11 **4 February 1442 **

First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.

Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

(Emphasis mine)

4 books of Kings includes 1 and 2 Samuel and Paralipomenon referes to Chronicles.

You can find more on the Council of Basel 1431-45 A.D. here:
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

 

[guanophore]

Porkpie,

Source? The plain fact that he describes right in the Vulgate that the Ds were apochrypha refutes your assertion.

The Catholic church never taught otherwise until Trent.

Rob

Perhaps it was not dogmatized till Trent, Rob, but since the 27 books of the NT were bound with the Septuagint in 382 AD nothing but canonical books were permitted to be used during liturgy. Since the DC’s continued to be in use, that means the Church considered them an equal part of the canon, despite Jerome’s opinion.

There is no way for you to undo the facts of history.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

Belonging to the Catholic church does not mean you speak for the entire church. That was done at Trent.

He could not speak for the entire church, hence Trent.

It is true that the role of the successor of Peter in Rome has developed over the years, but, as the Latin patriarch of the West, most certainly both Damasus and Gelasius spoke authoritatively for the Church. It so happens that the councils of Hippo and Carthage, presided over by regional bishops, received the same canon and affirmed it.

It was not the fact that these people did not speak for the Church, it was the rejection of Protestants to them that necessitated Trent. Rampant heresy is what triggers the need for dogmatic pronouncements, not faithful adherence the the faith.

I get my info on history from the historians, Catholic and protestant alike. They say the same thing anyway.

Rob

So, did you pick up a copy of foxe’s book of martyrs yet?

 

[guanophore]

It was the traditionally used canon from the beginning except for the Deuterocanicals

Ok, let me get this right. You are saying that Protestants got their canon from the “traditionally used canon from the beginning”. Yet, since the second century, the Church adopted the Septuagint because that was the canon used by the Apostles and their successors. The “traditionally used canon” containd the DC;s

**

No official canon to turn down**

Now, all of the sudden, there is no “traditionally used canon”???

You are contradicting yourself, Rob.

submariner2:

. Reformers supported Jerome and argued against using Ds for that reason, hence the need for Trent for Catholics to include the Ds in official scripture.

And the fact that the DC’s supported doctrines the Reformers rejected.

We accept it in the same way the Catholic church did for centuries before Trent

Accept what? The canon you say does not exist?

Seems to me that you are still stuck being unable to verify an authorative source for the canon. On what basis can you accept this particular collection of books as valid? Why this collection , and not another? Why is the Didache not included, and what makes you think it is not inspired? Why did the Epistle of Jude get included, but not the Letter of Barnabas?

It meant it was edifying but not to be used for doctrine. That was the argument of the Reformers. Hence the need for the Catholics to include it in the Canon in order to use it without argument.

I have never met a Protestant who was “edified” by reading the DC;s

 

[mackbrislawn]

It was the traditionally used canon from the beginning except for the Deuterocanicals. There was still much disagreement on that in the Catholic church since Jerome coined it as apochrypha and noted it as such in the Vulagate. Trent settled it for Catholics.

The Deuterocanonicals were traditionally included as well. Much disagreement? Much contention? Was there a lot before the Reformation? Some, but but I don’t think there was much strife over it.

Anyway, if not for the Reformation there would not have been Trent, so the Catholics would still be without an official canon! Just like the Protestants. And none of us would even know it.

Not officially. The Deuterocanicals was still a source of contention until Trent.

 

[TertiumQuid]

My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916–1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).

[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was "“Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet” (Luther, 682) - also translated as “I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ’s word, so my mouth is His who utters the words”(God’s words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm

, September 25, 2003).]

This quote is grossly out of context. Since seeing it posted here on Catholic Answers, I went and looked it up:

Luther: My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ

Regards,

James

 

[submariner2]

Perhaps it was not dogmatized till Trent, Rob, but since the 27 books of the NT were bound with the Septuagint in 382 AD nothing but canonical books were permitted to be used during liturgy. Since the DC’s continued to be in use, that means the Church considered them an equal part of the canon, despite Jerome’s opinion.

There is no way for you to undo the facts of history.

guano,

Canonical means dogmatized. It does not mean some churches used it or some individual taught it. It was not canonized or dogmatized until Trent.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

The Deuterocanonicals were traditionally included as well. Much disagreement? Much contention? Was there a lot before the Reformation? Some, but but I don’t think there was much strife over it.

Mack,

Much? Little? What difference. It was not formally settled.

Anyway, if not for the Reformation there would not have been Trent, so the Catholics would still be without an official canon! Just like the Protestants. And none of us would even know it.

Neither would they care. Just as protestants do not care.

“Not officially.” I don’t know why that is so important. Of course it was official, but not dogmatic. But if it is important, that means Protestants don’t have an official canon either, but it doesn’t seem to bother you. You go by scripture alone when you don’t even officially know what scriptures should be there!

I agree. Our church had the bible for many centuries before Trent. Not a problem. We go by scripture alone because we know what it is.

What a sidestep!
It should be no official canon to trim down. Luther also cast doubt on various NT books, which were affirmed at Trent.

So what? So did Ireneaus and Eusebius cast doubt on James and others. Luther included all the books as Jerome did in the Vulgate.

I don’t think Jerome was the real reason for not wanting to include the Ds. There must be some deeper reason. Jerome is just the pretext. Jerome was over a thousand years before the Reformation.

One could also question why the Catholic church so wanted to formally include the Ds.

Fact is the Reformers argued about those books because the Catholics wanted to use them for doctrines the Reformers objected to. So both sides have their bias on this issue. But there is no way to actually approach the real issues without getting the facts of history straight. That means getting past the silly accusation that Luther took books out of the bible.

Well, so Protestants do not have an official canon, like I said.

It was good enough for centuries without an official canon and we are happy as it is.

No, I asked what the word apochrypha means. Especially to Jerome

.

Jerome descibed the apochrypha as not to be used for doctrine. That is why he labeled them.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Isaiah,

Must be something wrong or no need for Trent. One wonders why so many claims for councils that defined the bible? Scholars say none were church wide hence Trent.

Rob

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah,

Must be something wrong or no need for Trent. One wonders why so many claims for councils that defined the bible? Scholars say none were church wide hence Trent.

Rob

Right… because scholars have never been wrong

Can you show me where did Jesus and the Apostles complain about the books of Scripture they had at the time?

Those are the Scholars I pay the most attention to, the infallible type

You are free to ignore over 1500 years of guidance by the Holy Spirit. Just please don’t make it be willful ignorance.

Peace,

Jose

 

[Porknpie]

I agree. Our church had the bible for many centuries before Trent. Not a problem. We go by scripture alone because we know what it is.

Rob

Submariner -

Is this not a problem? How can you go by scripture alone when scripture doesn’t tell you what books should be in the bible? If there was ever a catch 22 this is it.

 

[submariner2]

Submariner -

Is this not a problem? How can you go by scripture alone when scripture doesn’t tell you what books should be in the bible? If there was ever a catch 22 this is it.

porkpie,

Dunno why you think it is such a problem when the church lived with it for centuries.

The books of the OT were determined by the palestinian Jews and accepted by christians. The books of the NT were accepted by the early churches by consensus based on the Rule of Faith.

The reason why Protestants go by scripture alone is that it is the Word of God and nothing else is except the presence of Christ in our lives. Nothing else from any time carries that title. In addition we do not have the words of Jeus and the apostles from any other source that is reliable. Protestants simply ask why we should accept the words of any person when we have the words of Jesus and the apostles? I have never heard a good answer to that question.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Right… because scholars have never been wrong

Can you show me where did Jesus and the Apostles complain about the books of Scripture they had at the time?

Those are the Scholars I pay the most attention to, the infallible type

You are free to ignore over 1500 years of guidance by the Holy Spirit. Just please don’t make it be willful ignorance.

Peace,

Jose

Jose,

Lets try to be charitable. I will answer this question however.

Of course Jesus and the apostles never complained about scripture. What is your point? Perhaps it has to do with the Deuterocanicals and I would remind you that the Palestinian OT probably did not have those books and most likely Hebrew speaking Jews would use that. The NT uses the Septuagint because it was Greek speakers writing for Greek speakers. The Palestinian OT was Hebrew. That the Septuagint was utilized to speak to Greeks does not mean that Jesus or the Apostles accepted the Ds as you do. Jerome included them in his Vulagate but only as edifying and not as for doctrine. We have no idea what the apostles thought about that.

Rob