The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[guanophore]

They and none of the scriptures had ever been canonized by the entire church. Your 391 reference was not church-wide and the Roman church was not even consulted. The first church wide canonization of scripture was Trent.

You are mistaken, Rob. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon, and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” There has been a unity about the canon from these early centuries of the Church. The 27 books of the NT were bound together with the Alexandrian Septuagint by the year 382 AD.

The earlier regional coucils of Hippo and Carthage were convened for the same reason as Trent, to address heresies and to define the canonical books.

Trent was not an ecumenical council either, not being participated in by the Eastern Bishops. It was convened to address the heresies rampant in Europe at the time, one of them being the rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Septuagint was used by Jesus and the Apostles, that is why it was chosen by the Early Church and bound with the 27 books of the NT in 382 AD.

Luther questioned some that Eusebius and Irenaeus and others had also questioned but in the end he accepted them. So what?
When he became a christian he started from scratch.

You are mistaken again, Rob. Luther was baptized a Christian as an infant, and was raised in the Church. He was educated by that Church, and had one of the best available scholarly exposures for a monk or a priest. To say he “started from scratch” just indicates you have never studied the life of Luther.

Jerome wrote directly into the Vulgate that certain books were “apochrypha.” ie not to be used for doctrine. That was never changed by any formal action by the church. Obviously Pope Damasus did not object because the Vulgate was published with Jeromes caveat.

You are mistaken again, Rob. Jerome submitted to the ruling of Damasus on behalf of Holy Mother Church.

Mainstream protestants teach that the bible came from christians who were the forebears of all of us and not just Roman Catholics.

Yes, of course! The Christians at Carthage and Hippo were not Latin Catholics. The oldest books of the Scripture are actually in Aramaic and Syriac, not in Greek or Latin, for, as you recall, followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch of Syria.

We also refer to ourselves as catholic.

If I sit in my garage, and call myself a truck, it does not make it so. Like it or not, you are descended from a group that split off from the Apostolic Church, and made changes to the Gospel, and the Scriptures.

The books of the bible were accepted by the churches by common consensus and no formal action or council. They utilized the Rule of Faith and not a central authority.

It is true that one of the criteria used by the Church to identify the canon was the sensus fidelum. However, there most certainly were formal actions and councils, and these were all presided by central authorities, bishops, and finally , Pope Gelasius.

There was no formal action until Trent. This is the history I read even by Catholic writers writing for Catholics.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

It is very interesting to me that not only protestants call it apochrypha and not just long ago. The most recent edition of the New Jersalem Bible in its introduction refers to those books as apochrypha.

Perhaps your learned historian here had never heard of the councils of Hippo, Carthage or the decree of Gelasius?

That proclamation, that the 27 books, accompanied by the Alexandrian Septuagint, was made in 382 AD. It was reiterated at Trent.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see this caveat anywhere. Please provide the proof.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Don’t hold your breath, De Maria. Rob has shown a pattern of making assertions about which he is unable to provide documentation.

 

[guanophore]

There is no literature to prove any denomination was the primitive church except perhaps the Church of God mentioned in the NT.

Your exposure to literature appears to be somewhat limited, Rob, as there is ample evidence that the early Church was completely Catholic. Catholicism, though, is not a “denomination”, as that term means to take one’s name and thus identity out of another. Denominations formed during the Reformation, and identified themselves by how much, and which of the Catholic doctrine committed to the Church by the Apostle they would deny.

Naturally we do not see Matt 16::18 as you do. And we see no successors in the manner you do. We think our bishops and pastors are as much successors of the apostles as any other church.
We believe that most historians, Catholic as well as protestant, support our view.

Rob

Of course you must! If you were to embrace the Truth, you would have to become Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

It is unfair to say anyone removed anything from the bible when it had never been canonized churchwide.

You are right, but I think when you read the language of the early councils in the third and fourth century, it will be clear to you that they are dogmatice statements that represent the faith of the One Church.

Here you can refer to a non-Catholic site, so you won’t think we are being biased.

The term “protestant” was coined by a German prince. It has no offical connotation execept the informal meaning of those churches derived from the Reformation.

Once again, your history is deficient, Rob. The term “protestare” comes from the Latin and means to 'stand up for" or “stand up against”. The Protestors were standing up for their innovative new doctrines, and standing against the Roman Catholic Church.

The term “consensus” is utilized by historians. I agree with your presentation. The point is there was no church-wide decision or by some Church authority. They just individually decided the 27 we have was correct - in other words - a consensus.

That “consensus”, Rob was made by councils of Bishops, ordained successors of the Apostles. As much as you wish to deny that authority existed in the Church founded by Christ, the very existence of your Bible proves you wrong.

This is what caused many arguments between protestant and Catholic scholars about doctrines. When the Catholic brought up a Deuterocanical, the protestant reminded him of the opinion of Jerome. Hence Trent set the record straight for Catholics. It was quite late however and naturally was not convincing to the protestants who agreed with Jerome.

Indeed not. But then, the Protestants were not going to be convinced about a great many of the doctrines handed down to us from the Aposltes. The real presence being one of the main ones.

Usually in discussions like this I cannot get past real history into the actual argument which is also very interesting.

Rob

Maybe because your ‘real history’ exists only in your imagination?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Trent was not an ecumenical council either, not being participated in by the Eastern Bishops. It was convened to address the heresies rampant in Europe at the time, one of them being the rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Septuagint was used by Jesus and the Apostles, that is why it was chosen by the Early Church and bound with the 27 books of the NT in 382 AD.
.

Hi guanophore,

Trent was in fact an ecumenical council. You can go to newadvent.org and search for a list of the ecumenical councils and you will find Trent listed there.

Also, I would be wary of using the line of reasoning that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX and that is why it was chosen by the early church and bound with the 27 books of the NT. We simply don’t know what that much about the LXX of the 1st century.

The reason the church placed the deutero’s in the canon is because it was lead by the Holy Spirit to do so and no because of inclusing in the LXX.

 

[submariner2]

]You are right, but I think when you read the language of the early councils in the third and fourth century, it will be clear to you that they are dogmatice statements that represent the faith of the One Church.

guano,

They were ecumenical councils of the early churches but none canonized the bible

Once again, your history is deficient, Rob. The term “protestare” comes from the Latin and means to 'stand up for" or “stand up against”. The Protestors were standing up for their innovative new doctrines, and standing against the Roman Catholic Church.

I know what it meant at the time It was coined by a German priest. Today it commonly means the churches derived from the Reformation. Nobody protests anymore. We dont care about it.

That “consensus”, Rob was made by councils of Bishops, ordained successors of the Apostles. As much as you wish to deny that authority existed in the Church founded by Christ, the very existence of your Bible proves you wrong.

The bishops of my church are successors of the apostles as much as any other.

Dunno what you mean by the bible existence.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

They were ecumenical councils of the early churches but none canonized the bible

So what were they doing, actually, when they thought they were defining the Canon? In what activity, in your opinion, were they engaged, when the list of books considered canonical was formally catalogued?

I know what it meant at the time It was coined by a German priest. Today it commonly means the churches derived from the Reformation. Nobody protests anymore. We dont care about it.

On the contrary, you have been “protesting” since you got on CAF!

Your little mantra of “there is no evidence” is your way of “standing up against” the Catholic position. It is not very convincing, since there is so much history that contradicts your position, but your position is definitely protesting.

The bishops of my church are successors of the apostles as much as any other. Rob

For some reason it is important for you to believe this, not sure why. Since you claim ordination and apostolic succession is not in the NT, which is the Source of your faith, why does it matter so much?

 

[khuldar]

Being new into full communion with the Catholic church i’m still getting the hang of (quite) a few things…

But from what I can gather the crux of this discussion is by what authority did Martin Luther amend the bible? As far as I know the Pope has the authority given to him from heaven & passed down to him as the successor of St Peter…

Maybe there’s a lack in my education somewhere, but I am here to learn…

I will admit if I am wrong but that is the impression I’ve got reading through all the posts on this thread…

 

[mackbrislawn]

submariner2;9393960]

They were ecumenical councils of the early churches but none canonized the bible.

Rob, in a sense you are right. I don’t know of an actual ecumenical council that addressed the canon. Nicea primarily addressed the divinity of Jesus.

But that doesn’t mean that bishops did not publish canonical lists for their dioceses. Athanasius was the first bishop to publish our 27 books and only our 27 books. And the three local (non-ecumenical) councils of Hippo, Carthage, etc that are commonly mentioned, however, did address the canon, and these councils affirmed Athanasius’ list. These councils did canonize the bible.

I know what it meant at the time It was coined by a German priest. Today it commonly means the churches derived from the Reformation. Nobody protests anymore. We dont care about it.

But there is still protesting even today. Witness the discussions in this forum! Somebody must care. I think you care deeply. We all do.

Funny thing about protesting. When do you know when to stop? When do you know when to stop reforming? The Lutherans and Anglicans went so far. But they still look a lot like Catholics. The Calvinists went a bit further. Then Puritans wanted to “purify” the Anglican church of lingering Catholic remnants. The Anabaptists kept going, in denying the validity of the baptisms of everyone else (the rest of you guys still baptize babies!). The Church of Christ now protests against the once saved always saved theology of Luther and Calvin. The Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses protest against the Protestant idea that there is no God-given interpreter of scripture, and say, look, we are are the ones! They are the Reformation gone to seed. They are protesting against the Reformation!

Continual protest is the genesis of new denomiations. Of fracturing. That is the spirit of the Reformation.

The bishops of my church are successors of the apostles as much as any other.

In the sense they attempt to follow the functions as your church thinks of them, yes. But, according to the Catholic viewpoint, they are not sanctioned by God. In Catholic thought, bishops cannot be self appointed. They must be appointed by another bishop, who was appointed by a previous bishop, all the way back to an apostle. That is what Catholics mean by successors of the apostles. The difference is that the orignal apostles were inspired and could promulgate new revelation.

Dunno what you mean by the bible existence.

The bible would not exist in western Europe if not for the Roman church. The Latin church evangelized western Europe and brought belief in God and belief in the bible to the pagans there. The Latin church also physically brought the bible to them. As well as spiritual, the bible is also a physical thing, and it was the Latin, Roman church that copied the scriptures over and over again so the western churches would have scriptures to read in their services. Without the Church to do that, the bible would simply not have existed physically.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by submariner2
This is what caused many arguments between protestant and Catholic scholars about doctrines. When the Catholic brought up a Deuterocanical, the protestant reminded him of the opinion of Jerome. Hence Trent set the record straight for Catholics. It was quite late however and naturally was not convincing to the protestants who agreed with Jerome.
Indeed not. But then, the Protestants were not going to be convinced about a great many of the doctrines handed down to us from the Aposltes. The real presence being one of the main ones.

the Jerome argument makes me fall asleep. :yawn: He obeyed the Church and later strongly defended the DCs. Luther on the other hand wanted to remove not just one book but many including Revelation, Hebrew, James, Jude etc but also listened to his fellow protesters who knew better. He certainly did change his mind a lot including his professing obedience to the Pope on multiple occasions … And then not. :whackadoo:

But I give him MUCH credit for his love for the Virgin Mary, believing in her Immaculate Conception and her perpetual virginity. And, that our prayer should include the “Mother of God.”.

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9394122]So what were they doing, actually, when they thought they were defining the Canon? In what activity, in your opinion, were they engaged, when the list of books considered canonical was formally catalogued?

guano,

There were some individual churches that made lists but there was no church wide agreement in the Catholic church until Trent. The churches were deciding for themself when there was no churchwide authority on the subject.

Your little mantra of “there is no evidence” is your way of “standing up against” the Catholic position. It is not very convincing, since there is so much history that contradicts your position, but your position is definitely protesting.

Sorry, but I do not accept presumptions without a reason. No evidence means no evidence. I am not standing up against a Catholic position on the intent of the apostle who wrote the scripture. I dont think they teach about that like what you claim. It appears to me they develop dogma that does not have to be directly related to the apostles intent of scripture when he wrote it.

For some reason it is important for you to believe this, not sure why. Since you claim ordination and apostolic succession is not in the NT, which is the Source of your faith, why does it matter so much?

It actually does not matter that much. I do think ordination is a good thing for the church however to have trained people handling the sacraments and preserving the tenents of the faith. I see no point in apostolic succession except for the definition by Fr. Raymond Brown. i e, Those that take on the tasks of the apostles (as does the bishops and pastors of my church) But I am interested in correct history. When I see bad history I try to correct it. Only the truth of history matters to me. I think we are all better off to agree on what that is. Catholic and protestant scholars and historians have generally agreed on all aspects, but there are still many who have their own history not written in the history books.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

mackbrislawn;9398215]submariner2;9393960]
Rob, in a sense you are right. I don’t know of an actual ecumenical council that addressed the canon. Nicea primarily addressed the divinity of Jesus.

But that doesn’t mean that bishops did not publish canonical lists for their dioceses. Athanasius was the first bishop to publish our 27 books and only our 27 books. And the three local (non-ecumenical) councils of Hippo, Carthage, etc that are commonly mentioned, however, did address the canon, and these councils affirmed Athanasius’ list. These councils did canonize the bible.

Mack,

They were not church wide therefore no churchwide approved canon. An individual church did not matter. Not until Trent for the Catholic church.

But there is still protesting even today. Witness the discussions in this forum! Somebody must care. I think you care deeply. We all do.

To care is not to protest. I primarily discuss history anyway. I guess I protest against bad history.

Funny thing about protesting. When do you know when to stop? When do you know when to stop reforming? The Lutherans and Anglicans went so far. But they still look a lot like Catholics. The Calvinists went a bit further. Then Puritans wanted to “purify” the Anglican church of lingering Catholic remnants. The Anabaptists kept going, in denying the validity of the baptisms of everyone else (the rest of you guys still baptize babies!). The Church of Christ now protests against the once saved always saved theology of Luther and Calvin. The Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses protest against the Protestant idea that there is no God-given interpreter of scripture, and say, look, we are are the ones! They are the Reformation gone to seed. They are protesting against the Reformation!

Continual protest is the genesis of new denomiations. Of fracturing. That is the spirit of the Reformation.

I dont agree. I think all of us could use some reforming and some of that should consist of learning our similarities and what we have in common. It does not have to result in new denominations. On the contrary.

In the sense they attempt to follow the functions as your church thinks of them, yes. But, according to the Catholic viewpoint, they are not sanctioned by God. In Catholic thought, bishops cannot be self appointed. They must be appointed by another bishop, who was appointed by a previous bishop, all the way back to an apostle. That is what Catholics mean by successors of the apostles. The difference is that the orignal apostles were inspired and could promulgate new revelation.

There is no evidence for such a thing. In fact Paul was not appointed or ordained by anyone. He says as much in Gal 1.1.

The bible would not exist in western Europe if not for the Roman church. The Latin church evangelized western Europe and brought belief in God and belief in the bible to the pagans there. The Latin church also physically brought the bible to them. As well as spiritual, the bible is also a physical thing, and it was the Latin, Roman church that copied the scriptures over and over again so the western churches would have scriptures to read in their services. Without the Church to do that, the bible would simply not have existed physically.

I agree. Those lonely monks did a great service for our church.

Rob

 

[po18guy]

I guess I protest against bad history.

Do you mean history that you disagree with?

There is no evidence for such a thing. In fact Paul was not appointed or ordained by anyone. He says as much in Gal 1.1.

Read Acts again. The Lord chose Saul, just as He did with the twelve. No one was self-appointed, except maybe Simon the sorcerer (bad result) and the seven sons of Sceva (even worse result).

Since there was no bible to thump (or wave in the air) back then, how was one to learn “the way” unless becoming a Christian through baptism and learning to the oral teaching of the Apostles?

Are you claiming that Barnabas, Titus, John Mark et al just decided to start hanging around and taught as “free agents”?

Might start another thread on apostolic succession.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

There were some individual churches that made lists but there was no church wide agreement in the Catholic church until Trent. The churches were deciding for themself when there was no churchwide authority on the subject.

Gosh. Someone should have informed the councils of Bishops who were making canonical pronouncements. Some one should have told Pope Damasus I that the Council in Rome in 382 was not authoritative, because he sure thought it was! He also should never have directed the Latin Vulgate, based on the canon that had been passed through all those councils! Someone should also have told Gelasius he had no right to publish the Decretum. Pope Innocent I shoudl never have sent the canonical list of books to the Gallic bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse either, since it was not “official”.

And defnitely someone should have told all those monks that were copying the canon for a millenium before Trent because they thought it was authorized by the Church! If someone had just let them know that the canon was not closed in 382 as they thought, they could have added some more books! Betcha there were a lot of monks that could write good stories.

But no, Rob, it is not possible to find any Bible in the first 1500 years of the Church that was not patterned after the canon that was closed in 382. The reason for that is because the whole church accepted that canon, until the Reformation.

 Sorry, but I do not accept presumptions without a reason. No evidence means no evidence.

On the contrary, your posts indicate that you accept a great many presumptions without a reason. I can certainly believe that you can’t see “evidence”, especially where you have already decided it does not exist. Have you ever read the proceedings of the Synod of Hipp in 393? Have you looked at Athanasius list of canonized books in 367? Have you read the letters of the popes on the canon? Trent only reiterates the books that were listed in the fourth century.
You saying it did not happen does not make all this early evidence on the canon go away. (for anyone else except yourself, I guess).

  I see no point in apostolic succession

Such an attitude would certainly seem to make it difficult for one to explore whether or not Jesus might have had one.

But I am interested in correct history.

If this is really true, Rob, then you will be willing to look at historical documents with a more open mind than you represent here in your posts. You will approach the documents with an openness that perhaps they may contain some evidence of what the successors of the Apostles believed and taught. You will be willing to set aside your preconceived notions at least long enough to try to understand where the Apostolic Churches get their ideas. It is not necessary to embrace an idea to study it.

When I see bad history I try to correct it. Only the truth of history matters to me. I think we are all better off to agree on what that is. Catholic and protestant scholars and historians have generally  agreed on all aspects, but there are still many who have their own history not written in the history books.

Rob

And there is plenty of history you have not yet read!

 

[submariner2]

QUOTE=guanophore;9393512]You are mistaken, Rob. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon, and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” There has been a unity about the canon from these early centuries of the Church. The 27 books of the NT were bound together with the Alexandrian Septuagint by the year 382 AD.

The earlier regional coucils of Hippo and Carthage were convened for the same reason as Trent, to address heresies and to define the canonical books.

guano,

They were not church wide so did not count. No chruch wide canon until Trent.

Trent was not an ecumenical council either, not being participated in by the Eastern Bishops. It was convened to address the heresies rampant in Europe at the time, one of them being the rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Septuagint was used by Jesus and the Apostles, that is why it was chosen by the Early Church and bound with the 27 books of the NT in 382 AD.

Jesus did not speak Greek. The authors of the NT spoke Greek for Greeks and so used the Greek bible.

You are mistaken again, Rob. Luther was baptized a Christian as an infant, and was raised in the Church. He was educated by that Church, and had one of the best available scholarly exposures for a monk or a priest. To say he “started from scratch” just indicates you have never studied the life of Luther.

He started from scratch by rethinking everything. He was more than educated. He was a professor of bible. He knew church history and the background for theology backward and forward.

You are mistaken again, Rob. Jerome submitted to the ruling of Damasus on behalf of Holy Mother Church.

Never said he did not. That only means the bishop approved the designation of the Deuterocanicals as apocrypha. He wrote that right into the Vulgate.

Yes, of course! The Christians at Carthage and Hippo were not Latin Catholics. The oldest books of the Scripture are actually in Aramaic and Syriac, not in Greek or Latin, for, as you recall, followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch of Syria.

So what?

If I sit in my garage, and call myself a truck, it does not make it so. Like it or not, you are descended from a group that split off from the Apostolic Church, and made changes to the Gospel, and the Scriptures.

In terms of organization yes. In terms of the body of christ we are part of it as much as anybody. We also are the apostolic church and another church has no better claim.

It is true that one of the criteria used by the Church to identify the canon was the sensus fidelum. However, there most certainly were formal actions and councils, and these were all presided by central authorities, bishops, and finally , Pope Gelasius.

Not church wide. Bible only canonized at Trent.

Perhaps your learned historian here had never heard of the councils of Hippo, Carthage or the decree of Gelasius?

Of course he did.

That proclamation, that the 27 books, accompanied by the Alexandrian Septuagint, was made in 382 AD. It was reiterated at Trent.

It was decided formally for the Catholic church at Trent. Those other individual church statments could not stand church wide.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

They were not church wide therefore no churchwide approved canon. An individual church did not matter. Not until Trent for the Catholic church.

This seems like the epitome of hubris to me, a Protestant coming to a Catholic forum, telling Catholics what matters to them.

On the contrary, Rob, Catholics accept all the early evidence on the canon, even that before the canonical lists came out in the fourth Century. We also accept the pronoucements of Pope Damascus and Gelasius. For us, the Church has always been ONE CHURCH, not a scattered and disconnected coterie of “individual churches”. When the Bishops and the Popes say “we accept” they are speaking for the whole Church.

To care is not to protest. I primarily discuss history anyway. I guess I protest against bad history.

Seems more like you are using bad history as an act of protest!

I wonder why it is so important to you to reject what the Catholic Church believes about itself? Why should that matter to you? Why must you come here and tell Catholics what is important to them? It seems like you are trying to meet a need of some kind.

I dont agree. I think all of us could use some reforming and some of that should consist of learning our similarities and what we have in common. It does not have to result in new denominations. On the contrary.

Yes, people are always in need of reform. the doctrines of Christ, on the other hand, do not

There is no evidence for such a thing. In fact Paul was not appointed or ordained by anyone. He says as much in Gal 1.1.

Rob, it would be helpful, if you really mean what you say about being interested in the Truth, if you would be willing to look at what evidence Catholics use to support our doctrines. When you keep forwarding this mantra “there is no evidence” it is a real communication blocker. It gives the impression that, even if we were to share our evidence, you would not be willing to consider it.

No person in the early Church sent themselves. Every single one, Apostles, Bishops, priests and deacons, were sent by someone in authority over them. This modern idea that a person can just send themselves is contrary to Apostolic teaching.

 

[po18guy]

This seems like the epitome of hubris to me, a Protestant coming to a Catholic forum, telling Catholics what matters to them.

It has the appearance of arrogance, actually. Might not be, but still…

Rob, it would be helpful, if you really mean what you say about being interested in the Truth, if you would be willing to look at what evidence Catholics use to support our doctrines. When you keep forwarding this mantra “there is no evidence” it is a real communication blocker. It gives the impression that, even if we were to share our evidence, you would not be willing to consider it.

Sometimes, people conflate evidence with proof. Fine. So our evidence does not constitute their proof. As you say, so what? As well, “no evidence” can mean a mind that is closed to uncomfortable evidence. And, isn’t “bad history” simply that which you disagree with?

No person in the early Church sent themselves. Every single one, Apostles, Bishops, priests and deacons, were sent by someone in authority over them. This modern idea that a person can just send themselves is contrary to Apostolic teaching.

The root of Apostle means “sent.” The great commission was their sending. To send oneself strikes me as of the adversary. Like taking a Sacrament instead of receiving it.

As to those who send themselves, there certainly are examples in scripture: Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9-23) and the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-16).

 

[guanophore]

guano,

They were not church wide so did not count. No chruch wide canon until Trent.

Who are you, to decide that the proclamations of the successor of Peter don’t “count” for Catholics? Since you are anti-Catholic, I can see why you would not want them to “count” for yourself, or your own ecclesial community, but it is a mystery how you take on the authority to say that Catholics must disregard the Pope.:bigyikes:

I have seen my share of audacity in my years here on CAF, but this one is right up there!

Jesus did not speak Greek. The authors of the NT spoke Greek for Greeks and so used the Greek bible.

We don’t know this. It is very likely that, living most of his life near Gentiles, that he did speak some Gk. He also ministered in Gentile regions where Gk. was the norm. But yes, most of the writers of the NT wrote in Gk, except for Matthew, who wrote his gospel in Aramaic.

He started from scratch by rethinking everything. He was more than educated. He was a professor of bible. He knew church history and the background for theology backward and forward.

If that were true, then he probably would have become Orthodox. I am not sure he knew anything at all about Eastern Christians. I agree, though, he took it upon himself to abandon the Apostolic faith and to rethink everything himself. He was not “more than educated”, though. He was a very tortured man, afflicted with many problems, lacking in personal sanctity.

 That only means the bishop approved the designation of the Deuterocanicals as apocrypha. He wrote that right into the Vulgate.

Are you speaking of the pope?

So what?

The canon was closed from the East, and that closure spread West. It was not something originated by Roman Catholics. You asserted that there was no accepted canon around the world, but that is not the case. The canon was considered closed at the time of Athanasius.

In terms of organization yes. In terms of the body of christ we are part of it as much as anybody. We also are the apostolic church and another church has no better claim.

I am sure you need to believe that, for the sake of your self esteem, if for no other reason. Having been separated from the Apostolic Succession for 500+ years, some elements of the One Faith have been lost to you. To that degree, your ecclesial community is improperly joined to the One Body.

Jesus’ Church is not about people have “better claim”. Our unity is created by adherance to the Truth. Truth was lost through the Reformation, and continues to be lost as the Protstant church divides.

Not church wide. Bible only canonized at Trent.

I guess you need to hang on to this because otherwise you would not have justification for using a truncated Bible. The Teaching authority of Christ bound the 27 books of the NT to the Septuagint in 392, as well as several times prior to that. Trent reinterated what had been decided by the early Church. YOu will not find any bibles without those canonical books prior to the Reformation.

Of course he did.

Oh!, but he considers the synods and actions of the college of bishops and the Pope to be subject to his own, or your authority?

It was decided formally for the Catholic church at Trent. Those other individual church statments could not stand church wide.

What was pronounced as dogma at Trent was what had been received by the Church from the successors of the Apostles. It is no different than the dogmatic pronouncement at Nicea of the hypostatic union. This notion did not occur in 325 when it was dogmatized. It is the teaching of the Apostles. It was dogmatized to prevent heresy.

In the same way, the canon was dogmatically clarified at Trent to combat heresy. The Septuagint was chosen by the Church because it is what was used by the Apostles. The Apostles did not distinguish for us that any of it’s contents lacked inspiration.

And neither did Jesus, who according to your perspective must have had the flu for 1000 years, make it clear to the Church that they were using the wrong collection of books.

 

[mackbrislawn]

submariner2;9402496 Mack,

They were not church wide therefore no churchwide approved canon. An individual church did not matter. Not until Trent for the Catholic church.

This is a strange statement to make. First, these were not individual churches at all. The councils, even though local, covered large geographic areas. And the canons they approved were the official scriptures for those areas.

Protestants often use the “common consensus” idea of how the canon came to be. But when Catholics use it, it doesn’t count! Well, by “common consensus” all the rest of the church used the same canon as these “local” councils. So, why does it count when Protestants use that argument, but not when Catholics use it?

So, for both the eastern churches and western churches they did indeed have a canon.

But, a question. If it is true that the Catholic church did not have a canon intil Trent, and since Protestants do not accept Trent, that means Protestants do not have a canon! Saying there was no churchwide approved canon is a double-edged sword.

To care is not to protest. I primarily discuss history anyway. I guess I protest against bad history.

Don’t we all.

I dont agree. I think all of us could use some reforming and some of that should consist of learning our similarities and what we have in common. It does not have to result in new denominations. On the contrary.

Yes, we as individual Christians always need reforming. For Catholics, that is the purpose of the sacraments.

There is no evidence for such a thing. In fact Paul was not appointed or ordained by anyone. He says as much in Gal 1.1.

He was appointed by Jesus, as were all the apostles. This made him an official teacher, with the Holy Spirit behind him.

I agree. Those lonely monks did a great service for our church.

They did.

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9403698]Who are you, to decide that the proclamations of the successor of Peter don’t “count” for Catholics? Since you are anti-Catholic, I can see why you would not want them to “count” for yourself, or your own ecclesial community,

The canon was closed from the East, and that closure spread West. It was not something originated by Roman Catholics. You asserted that there was no accepted canon around the world, but that is not the case. The canon was considered closed at the time of Athanasius.

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

I am sure you need to believe that, for the sake of your self esteem, if for no other reason. Having been separated from the Apostolic Succession for 500+ years, some elements of the One Faith have been lost to you. To that degree, your ecclesial community is improperly joined to the One Body.

I dont need to believe anything about the bible canon except for what is in real history. My church bishops and pastors are successors of the apostles no less than any church. Prove me wrong.

I guess you need to hang on to this because otherwise you would not have justification for using a truncated Bible. The Teaching authority of Christ bound the 27 books of the NT to the Septuagint in 392, as well as several times prior to that. Trent reinterated what had been decided by the early Church. YOu will not find any bibles without those canonical books prior to the Reformation.

You will find the Vulgate which clearly explains that the Deuterocanicals are apochrypha.
Luther handled his bible in same manner. He included the Deuterocanicals but labeled the D’s as apochrypha as did Jerome.

Rob