R
rcwitness
Guest
Can you please provide proof for this claim?
- Status
Thanks Don. PR makes it makes it easier by her good will.
Jon
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Something just occurred to me. If this has already been discussed early in the thread I apologize. In addition to the current NT canon being used in early Church liturgy, by the Early Church Father, confirmed in Christian councils, etc., it also survived the reformation era in tact. That is, in spite of attacks, and attempts to dispose of some of the canon by the most powerful of the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and others, Catholics and Protestants alike, still today, enjoy the full and same NT canon set agreed and canonized by the councils. To me, this seems to be a strong indicator of the involvement of the very Holy Spirit who inspired this particular canon of books in the protection of this canon over the centuries.
While Protestants and Catholics may never solve the issues surrounding some of the OT writings, the NT seems to be settled theology and no longer a point of contention or debate, (until this thread, that is)
May the Lord bless and keep us all,
Steve
While Protestants and Catholics may never solve the issues surrounding some of the OT writings, the NT seems to be settled theology and no longer a point of contention or debate, (until this thread, that is)
May the Lord bless and keep us all,
Steve
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are correct, although I do wish to tweak the above a wee bit.Something just occurred to me. If this has already been discussed early in the thread I apologize. In addition to the current NT canon being used in early Church liturgy, by the Early Church Father, confirmed in Christian councils, etc., it also survived the reformation era in tact. That is, in spite of attacks, and attempts to dispose of some of the canon by the most powerful of the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and others, Catholics and Protestants alike, still today, enjoy the full and same NT canon set agreed and canonized by the councils. To me, this seems to be a strong indicator of the involvement of the very Holy Spirit who inspired this particular canon of books in the protection of this canon over the centuries.
While Protestants and Catholics may never solve the issues surrounding some of the OT writings, the NT seems to be settled theology and no longer a point of contention or debate, (until this thread, that is)
May the Lord bless and keep us all,
Steve
There are indeed Christians who do object to the 27 book canon of the NT.
See here: voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
And I must say, it is nothing but the fruit of the divorce from the Catholic magisterium.
All non-Catholic Christians have no logical reason for objecting to these folks claiming the right to remove the Pauline epistles.
For these folks are simply applying the logic begun by the Protestant Reformation: magisterium? we don’t need no magisterium! we get to decide for ourselves!
P
Protestor
Guest
Yes, God even though I do not concede that I need a reference, yes. I don’t like your use of “you permit” this to me implies that I had a say in the matter. The real question I assume is wether or not God permits it. Something being possible does not imply that all can or should do it. I am not saying that I or another christian cannot be wrong, because we could be. How do you go from reliable to infallible? The gap between these two words seems infinite. I always like to locate myself with Christ and the early church when possible. We agree if by catholic you mean universal and if by church you mean it’s members.
Kind of like the Catholic Magisterium deciding for itself not to include 3 Macc, or the Prayer of Manasseh, when other patriarchates did and do accept them?
As a Lutheran, I think we absolutely do have a logical reason for rejecting these folks. It comes from a distinct and logical viewing of the teachings and viewpoints found in the early Church. It is the early Church that should guide our views, and how we consider and apply the books.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Who doesn’t accept it?
And could you please cite your sources from an official authority on this?
The Catholic magisterium decides for itself because it has the authority to do so, and we have the guarantee from Christ of infallibility on this matter.
That’s quite comforting. We aren’t trusting in men, but in the Holy Spirit.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So, just so we’re clear, you believe you can read something and know that it’s inspired?
So if I give you some random texts, you will know, without seeking succor with Google, if they are theopneustos or not?
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think you have a good and sound knowledge of things Jon.
As for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, that can be argued with a lot of strength on the grounds of early councils only. But then the Scriptures that we all agree on lend more favor to the Catholic position. And when two traditions from the patriarchs did come to a crossroads, that’s where I think the essence of the Supremacy of Rome’s office is suppose to settle matters.
Sorry if that’s going off topic, but I felt it was an important example.
Does Trent include 3 Macc. and the Prayer of Manasseh in the canon of Scripture? They are included in the canons of eastern patriarchs, who have jurisdiction in their regions the same as the pope in his - “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also”. Nicaea canon 6
Of course you’re trusting men. The magisterium has the authority to decide this only for the bishops in communion with him. Where in scripture or the councils do they have this outside of ecumenical council? They are indeed good trustworthy men, that is true.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you have something from these Eastern patriarchs which declare 3 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manassah to be theopneustos?
Yes, indeed.
That’s why I always take issue with some folks here who object to trusting in men.
No, Jon.
Your elders don’t get to decide what’s theopneustos and what’s not.
oca.org/questions/scripture/canon-of-scripture
Agreed.
Apparently the other bishops do. PR, Trent is not a truly ecumenical council.
Jon
P
Protestor
Guest
“Something being possible does not imply that all can or should do it. I am not saying that I or another christian cannot be wrong, because we could be.”(Me) I think this clarifies what you are asking about
“you will know”(you) change underlined to “could” or “believe it is possible to” and I agree with this statement. Also this could only apply to me, but I think that it applies to all people.
I have a history professor who every semester he asks the class whether a quote is from the Bible or is from Shakespeare. I got it wrong both times I have had him. The first time it was a quote from Song of songs and the second was Henry VIII. I cannot remember either quote directly but I thought you might think this is funny, because I do.
Here is the rub. Having knowledge that is or that passage is theopneustos to me essentially requires revelation at some lvl as far as I can tell. Just as knowing that Yeshua is Christ has to be revelatory. Knowing that anything is of God or is God has to be revealed by him. Otherwise you are not completely justified in your belief and consequently do not have knowledge. Having just a belief is not that big of a deal, at least to me, but belief and knowledge are distinct.
The RCC claims divine authority which is the only authoritative position I do accept as valid, but I have not been presented with revelation on the issue of their authority. Absent of revelation or an adequate proof of their divine authority I am relegated to my current position.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, now I’m confused!
That article you cited says that the RCC uses the same canon?
Is this correct?
The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).
What other bishops? Your Lutheran elders? Are they known as bishops?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Still not sure what you mean, Protestor.
Are you saying that you can read a text and know, on your own–without being told that it’s inspired by the Catholic Church–whether it’s inspired or not?
A simple yes or no, because so far I’ve not been able to follow you when I’ve asked this.
Yes, you have been given the charism of reading a text and knowing it comes from God?
Or no, you don’t have this ability to read a text and know it’s theopneustos?
C
clem456
Guest
I’m always amazed at the contorted dancing around this issue.
Yes, we do trust in men, because God became one and gave his gifts to us to be passed on. We trust in men because that’s what God did. Christ is the head of a real body composed of real flesh and blood here on earth. We cannot claim to trust in Christ if we do not recognize the authority he left behind.
“The Word became flesh”. This the unavoidable foundation of Christianity.
It stretches credibility past the breaking point to believe that God would become a man, live among us and teach us, die and rise, and not give the gift of authority to the human beings he hung with. Maybe Christ’s life was pointless?
If you cannot accept the authority of the Church he established, what is the foundation of your Christianity? God risked everything to mingle with and trust human beings, even to the point of death, yet we cannot take that step ourselves. We cling to our own traditions, ironically.
Yes, we do trust in men, because God became one and gave his gifts to us to be passed on. We trust in men because that’s what God did. Christ is the head of a real body composed of real flesh and blood here on earth. We cannot claim to trust in Christ if we do not recognize the authority he left behind.
“The Word became flesh”. This the unavoidable foundation of Christianity.
It stretches credibility past the breaking point to believe that God would become a man, live among us and teach us, die and rise, and not give the gift of authority to the human beings he hung with. Maybe Christ’s life was pointless?
If you cannot accept the authority of the Church he established, what is the foundation of your Christianity? God risked everything to mingle with and trust human beings, even to the point of death, yet we cannot take that step ourselves. We cling to our own traditions, ironically.
T
Topper17
Guest
Jon. I am truly disappointed by this statement. I think that it is a gross simplification and would definitely lead to a misunderstanding of the actual history. Your comment would seem to imply that Trent was not a ‘truly ecumenical council’ because the Protestants were not in attendance. As you know that is NOT exactly the whole story. The fact that you were previously exposed to the following information only increases my concern. From a post earlier this year:
Actually that it not true. The ‘Myth’ is that the Church refused to allow Protestants at Trent, which of course means that the Catholics are ‘more responsible’ for our divisions than are the Protestants, who presumably wanted to attend but were not allowed to. In fact the Protestants WERE invited to Trent but didn’t attend. Luther advised against it. The following from an even older thread:
You state that the Lutherans were not invited to Trent. The facts are quite different, and they are facts that I have never read in any Protestant account.
“In 1536 [Pope Paul III] issued a call for a general council to meet at Mantua on May 23, 1537, and he invited the Protestants to attend. He assumed that all parties in attendance would accept the conclusions of the conference; but the Protestants, who would be in the minority there, could hardly accept such an obligation. Luther advised against attending, and the congress of Protestants at Schmalkalden returned the Pope’s invitation unopened. The Emperor still insisted that the council should meet on German soil, on Italian soil, he argued, it would be crowded with Italian bishops and become a puppet of the Pope. After many negotiations and delays Paul agreed to have the council meet at Trent, which though predominately Italian, was in Imperial territory and subject to Charles. The council was summoned to meet there on November 1, 1542.” Will Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 927
In regards to the session held 9 years later:
“Pope Julius III “summoned the Council to meet again at Trent in May 1551, and agreed that the Lutherans should be given a fair hearing………On January 24, 1552, the Protestant deputies addressed the assembly. They proposed the decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basel on the superior authority of councils over the popes should be confirmed; that the present; that the members of the present body should be released from their vows of fealty to Julius III, that all decisions hitherto reached by the Council should be annulled; and that fresh discussions of the issues should be held by an enlarged synod in which the Protestants would be adequately represented. Julius III forbade consideration of these proposals. The Council voted to postpone action till March 19, when additional Protestant delegates were expected. During this delay military developments supervened upon theology. In January 1552, the King of France signed an alliance with the German Protestants; in March Maruice of Saxony advanced towards Innsbruck; Charles fled, and no force could prevent Maurice, if he wished, from capturing Trent and swallowing the Council. The bishops disappeared one by one, and on April 28 the Council was formally suspended.” Durant, pg. 930-31
In other words, they refused to attend the earliest session and then they showed up and demanded that all of the decisions made by the earlier session be nullified, the very session that they had refused to attend. Ridiculous!
T
Topper17
Guest
Continued:
"Despite the best efforts of Emperor Ferdinand I, the Catholic brother of Charles V who was as firm in the Faith as he had been, to persuade them [the Protestants] to attend.” Warren H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 286
In regards to the conclusions of that 1562 session, Carroll continues:
“All of the decrees of the previous sessions were re-read and their approval was confirmed. All 225 Council Fathers present signed them, and 39 proxies from absent Fathers were recorded in their favor………
The homilist at the opening Mass of this last day of the final session of the Council of Trent directly addressed the Protestants:
“We have chosen this city, at the entrance into Germany, on the very threshold, so to speak, of their house, in order to remove all suspicion from their minds, we have refused to be guarded by troops, we have issued letters of safe conduct which they themselves have framed; we have waited for them, we have begged and implored them to come and gain knowledge from the light of truth.”
Yet they had not come’, without significant exception, **they had indeed not shown the slightest inclination to come; they had cut themselves off from the Church Christ founded. **There could be no more attempts at negotiation or compromise with them, which over almost half a century had given every possible opportunity to happen and to succeed. There must then be, in each country, a fight to the finish. For nearly everyone in that age, Catholic or Protestant, believed unquestioningly that in the end all churches of a nation must preach the same doctrine and acknowledge the same head……With no compromise or reconciliation possible, the great issue could therefore only be settled on the battlefield, and to the battlefield it was now committed…………
Almost miraculously, those still loyal to the Church had in the end spoken with virtually one voice in proclaiming both doctrine and reform, despite all the differences and mutual suspicions dividing them. The contrast with the bitter divisions that had developed among the Protestants - between the Lutherans and the Calvinists especially, but also between Flacius Illyricus and his followers in Germany and other Lutherans, as well as among Anabaptists, mainline Protestants and Unitarians - was very impressive and well noted. The Catholic Church was essentially reborn at the Council of Trent, resurrected from the dead, now the true Reformation, the Catholic Reformation, could and did begin. Carroll, pg. 299-301
A summary of these quotes is as follows and it is VERY different than the standard Protestant “Legend” which portrays Protestantism as being kept from Trent by the Church.
The Pope invited the Protestants to an Ecumenical Council in Mantua in 1537 (which was to become the Council of Trent.) The Protestants returned the invitation unopened. Still though the Pope agreed to the Protestant demand to have the Council on German Soil. In 1551 the Pope agrees to give the Lutherans a fair hearing. The Protestants attend and demand that the Council its renounce its vows to the Pope, annul all prior decisions of the Council, and that new discussions be initiated. Rather than destroy the Church, Julius refuses. The Protestants threaten Trent militarily and Trent closes for the time being. In 1562 Protestants are again invited to the Council and even the Emperor is unable to convince them to attend. After this last session, Trent is closed. Europe descends into a series of wars in which, overall, tens of millions are killed.
As usual Jon, the whole story is FAR different than some biased and misleading one-line statement.
Those are the historical facts – facts that I have never read in a Protestant account of either the Reformation or of Luther’s life. It seems pretty obvious at this point that Luther, while he was still alive, was wrong to recommend that the Protestants reject the invitation to attend the Council.
"Despite the best efforts of Emperor Ferdinand I, the Catholic brother of Charles V who was as firm in the Faith as he had been, to persuade them [the Protestants] to attend.” Warren H. Carroll, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 286
In regards to the conclusions of that 1562 session, Carroll continues:
“All of the decrees of the previous sessions were re-read and their approval was confirmed. All 225 Council Fathers present signed them, and 39 proxies from absent Fathers were recorded in their favor………
The homilist at the opening Mass of this last day of the final session of the Council of Trent directly addressed the Protestants:
“We have chosen this city, at the entrance into Germany, on the very threshold, so to speak, of their house, in order to remove all suspicion from their minds, we have refused to be guarded by troops, we have issued letters of safe conduct which they themselves have framed; we have waited for them, we have begged and implored them to come and gain knowledge from the light of truth.”
Yet they had not come’, without significant exception, **they had indeed not shown the slightest inclination to come; they had cut themselves off from the Church Christ founded. **There could be no more attempts at negotiation or compromise with them, which over almost half a century had given every possible opportunity to happen and to succeed. There must then be, in each country, a fight to the finish. For nearly everyone in that age, Catholic or Protestant, believed unquestioningly that in the end all churches of a nation must preach the same doctrine and acknowledge the same head……With no compromise or reconciliation possible, the great issue could therefore only be settled on the battlefield, and to the battlefield it was now committed…………
Almost miraculously, those still loyal to the Church had in the end spoken with virtually one voice in proclaiming both doctrine and reform, despite all the differences and mutual suspicions dividing them. The contrast with the bitter divisions that had developed among the Protestants - between the Lutherans and the Calvinists especially, but also between Flacius Illyricus and his followers in Germany and other Lutherans, as well as among Anabaptists, mainline Protestants and Unitarians - was very impressive and well noted. The Catholic Church was essentially reborn at the Council of Trent, resurrected from the dead, now the true Reformation, the Catholic Reformation, could and did begin. Carroll, pg. 299-301
A summary of these quotes is as follows and it is VERY different than the standard Protestant “Legend” which portrays Protestantism as being kept from Trent by the Church.
The Pope invited the Protestants to an Ecumenical Council in Mantua in 1537 (which was to become the Council of Trent.) The Protestants returned the invitation unopened. Still though the Pope agreed to the Protestant demand to have the Council on German Soil. In 1551 the Pope agrees to give the Lutherans a fair hearing. The Protestants attend and demand that the Council its renounce its vows to the Pope, annul all prior decisions of the Council, and that new discussions be initiated. Rather than destroy the Church, Julius refuses. The Protestants threaten Trent militarily and Trent closes for the time being. In 1562 Protestants are again invited to the Council and even the Emperor is unable to convince them to attend. After this last session, Trent is closed. Europe descends into a series of wars in which, overall, tens of millions are killed.
As usual Jon, the whole story is FAR different than some biased and misleading one-line statement.
Those are the historical facts – facts that I have never read in a Protestant account of either the Reformation or of Luther’s life. It seems pretty obvious at this point that Luther, while he was still alive, was wrong to recommend that the Protestants reject the invitation to attend the Council.
P
Protestor
Guest
If this were a simple question about a simple issue I could give you a simple yes or no. I have been quite clear. Since we have talked about this many times over the span of years you may have forgotten. In the past yes and possibly again in the future. God currently is not at my beck and call, sadly, but if she decides to present me again with such a revelation I will not deny it. If this does not answer you sufficiently I fear nothing will.
No, Orthodox bishops. Does the CC consider the Prayer of Manasseh inspired?Well, now I’m confused!
That article you cited says that the RCC uses the same canon?
Is this correct?
The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).
What other bishops? Your Lutheran elders? Are they known as bishops?
Jon
- Status