The Deuterocanonicals...again, I'm sure

[Cranch]

I never said that the Catholic Church settled on the Protestant canon. My point is that the issue wasn’t resolved for the “universal” church until Trent.

The Catholic Church from the beginning has been entrusted with the preservation of the deposit of faith which it has accomplished from the Apostles down to the present day. As has already been explained the canon was known and fixed for a millenia before Trent. The Church does not need to remind itself what the canon is. Trent was among other things, a response to Protestants, who, among their other errors, had begun to deny parts of the canon and so an infallible reiteration of the known canon was deemed useful to combat Protestant error.

As far as whether your church “added” the books, it depends on what you mean by added. I don’t believe they (the ones you call deutero’s) are canonical so yes, I believe your church added the books to the canon.

Again, this has already been explained as untenable. The canon minus the deuterocanonicals didn’t fall whole from the sky. There was nothing “added”!

 

[bogeydogg]

The fact is, your church didn’t “infallibly” declare the canon until Trent.

Before Trent you will find loyal Catholics rejecting in part or in whole the books you refer to as the deutero’s.

You are very fond of that word “infallibly”, I’ve seen it here and on other threads where you make the same argument. Here’s the problem. Church Councils are meetings of Bishops held to settle hot theological debate so that the teaching of the Church at large may be unified. You like to point out that the Church did not “infallibly” declare that the canon was settled until Trent so I invite you to read the Nicene Creed and there you will find the Church did not “infallibly” declare the divinity of Christ. The same Christ I might add whom Martin Luther so venerated as he tore apart the Bible, so I wonder on what authority do you worship Christ seeing as how the Church did not “infallibly” declare Christ divine and neither did Luther?

 

[Janet_S]

If one doesn’t accept the books you refer to as the deutero-canonicals as being inspired, how else would they term the Catholic Church’s acceptance of the books?

How else would someone term the CC’s acceptance of the books? I’m not sure. The CC accepted them before Protestants rejected them, so I would say Protestants removed those books from the canon. It makes no sense for you to claim the CC added books after the Council of Trent when I can show you a Bible from 100 years prior to Trent that had those books in the OT canon.

BTW, who told you they weren’t inspired and why do you accept that person’s authority? Do you accept that person’s authority about all matters of faith or just this issue?

 

[Janet_S]

Couple of questions…
a.) How do you know the apostles handed the books you call the deutero’s on to the church?

b.) How do we know Pope Gregory the Great accepted all the deutero’s?

c.) Christians from the Apostolic Fathers to Jerome (with the possible exception of Julius Africanus) accepted the Deuteros as inspired Scripture. Are you saying that there was absolute unity on the acceptance of the deutero’s (Julius Africanus accepted)?

d.) What about after Jerom? Was there unity still?

For your first question, I would like to ask you a similar question. How do you know the Apostles handed on to you the books in your Bible? Each of us is accepting the authority of someone or some institution to tell us, aren’t we.

Also, when you talk about Pope Gregory, are you going to cite the document of the Morals of Job? If it is, we did a thread on this not too long ago.

To answer your other questions, I would have to write a book, but luckily for me, it has already been done.

Anyway, if you are really interested, read Gary Michuta’s book. He spend 4 & 1/2 years studying the topic of the OT canon. He presents and analyses every quotation of the Deuteros in the first three hundred years of the Church, and the Catholic case for the OT canon is stronger than ever. Professional anti-Catholics have attempted to refute his arguments, but so far they really don’t know what to do with them.

So, if you’re a person really seeking truth, read it. It goes into much more detail about your questions than we could get into here.

 

[Calvinator]

You are very fond of that word “infallibly”, I’ve seen it here and on other threads where you make the same argument. Here’s the problem. Church Councils are meetings of Bishops held to settle hot theological debate so that the teaching of the Church at large may be unified. You like to point out that the Church did not “infallibly” declare that the canon was settled until Trent so I invite you to read the Nicene Creed and there you will find the Church did not “infallibly” declare the divinity of Christ. The same Christ I might add whom Martin Luther so venerated as he tore apart the Bible, so I wonder on what authority do you worship Christ seeing as how the Church did not “infallibly” declare Christ divine and neither did Luther?

Actually, I usually only use the words “infallible or infallibly” because many Catholic posters on this forum seem to believe you can’t know anything without the guidance of an infallible body such as you guys claim your magesterium to be.

 

[Calvinator]

For your first question, I would like to ask you a similar question. How do you know the Apostles handed on to you the books in your Bible? Each of us is accepting the authority of someone or some institution to tell us, aren’t we.

I guess I could answer this a couple of different ways but to keep the conversation going I will agree with you.

However, I often here about how such and such Catholic belief was handed on to the church from the apostles and oftentimes there is no evidence of this fact…well no evidence other than that of your church’s claim.

Also, when you talk about Pope Gregory, are you going to cite the document of the Morals of Job? If it is, we did a thread on this not too long ago.

So what did you guys decide? It seems pretty clear he rejected 1Maccabees, or at least I think it was 1 Maccabees and yes that’s the book I was thinking of, although I think the title was slightly different.

To answer your other questions, I would have to write a book, but luckily for me, it has already been done.

Anyway, if you are really interested, read Gary Michuta’s book. He spend 4 & 1/2 years studying the topic of the OT canon. He presents and analyses every quotation of the Deuteros in the first three hundred years of the Church, and the Catholic case for the OT canon is stronger than ever. Professional anti-Catholics have attempted to refute his arguments, but so far they really don’t know what to do with them.

So, if you’re a person really seeking truth, read it. It goes into much more detail about your questions than we could get into here.

No problem. Looking back at the questions I can see how it would be a little bit hard to answer them considering you probably have another life other than CAF.

 

[Calvinator]

So we never had a canon until Trent, yet we changed it then?

How can this be?

Sounds like the usual flip flop argument we always hear.

BTW, this isn’t what I said. I pointed out that the first universally authoritive canon occured at Trent, not earlier. I didn’t say that no recognized canon existed. I didn’t even say that there weren’t competing views of the canon.

So, I only pointed out a fact. How can a fact be a flip flop argument?

 

[epostle]

It’s not a fact.

when the Reformers said, Hey, the Bible doesn’t teach things like prayer for the dead, the bishops at the Council of Trent tacked the book of 2 Maccabees onto the Old Testament and said, Now it does! But is that really true? Well, let’s find out. Fortunately, as you may know, I have a time machine, so together we can go back through history and see for ourselves. Let’s climb in and take a little trip back to the year 1546, to the town of Trent, in northern Italy and find out what really happened. All strapped in? Good, cause here we go!

There, that wasn’t so bad, was it? In the wink of an eye we’ve arrived at Trent on April 9, 1546. (Don’t worry, the dizziness is normal, it’ll pass in a minute or two. Just don’t stand up too quickly.) Yesterday, the Council of Trent, the 19th ecumenical council, issued its Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures. A copy is posted on the wall over there. Since you probably don’t read Latin, I’ll read it to you:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, . . . . . . following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both . . . . . . And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings , two of Chronicles, the first book of Ezra, and the second which is entitled Nehemiah; Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with** Baruch**; Ezekiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; **two books of the Maccabees, the first and the second. **Of the New Testament: . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].
Council of Trent, Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, April 8, 1546.

As you can see, right there in plain Latin, Trent did indeed include the deuterocanonical books in its list of Scripture. But did the Council add them, as McDowell claims, or where they there all along? Let’s find out. Strap yourself back into the time machine, and we’ll take another trip, this time much shorter. We’re just going to jump back 104 years, to the city of Florence, Italy. Ready? Here we go!
Now we’ve arrived safely in Florence. Hop out and take a look around. It’s February 5, 1442. The Protestant Reformation hasn’t happened yet, and won’t for another 75 years. In fact, Martin Luther won’t even be born for another 41 years. The reason I’ve brought you here is to read the decree that was promulgated yesterday, February 4th, by the Council of Florence, the 17th ecumenical council. I think you’ll find it interesting:
[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . 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 Chronicles, Ezra, 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 **. . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].
Council of Florence, Eleventh Session, February 4, 1442

 

[epostle]

Do you notice anything familiar about this decree? By an amazing coincidence, it lists exactly the same books that we saw a few minutes ago when we were at Trent, 104 years in the future. But didn’t Josh McDowell say, The acceptance of certain books in the apocrypha as canonical by the Roman Catholic church was to a great extent a reaction to the Protestant Reformation?
McDowell et al., Answers, 37

If so, then the Catholic Church is truly an impressive institution. Apparently, it was able to react to the Protestant Reformation 75 years before it even started! That’s a pretty neat trick. On the other hand, perhaps McDowell was just wrong.
Obviously, McDowell was wrong. The first fact we’ve gleaned from our little excursion through time is that the canon of Scripture issued by the Council of Trent was just a repeat of the canon issued by the Council of Florence 104 years earlier. And Florence’s cannon cannot have been a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, because the Protestant Reformation hadn’t happened yet.

But doesn’t this just move the problem back a century? I mean, adding books to the Bible in 1442 is just as bad as adding them in 1546. So, wouldn’t it be accurate to rephrase McDowell’s objection and say, It cannot be overemphasized that the Roman Catholic church itself did not officially declare these books Holy Scripture until 1442 at the Council of Florence? I’m afraid not. Hop back into the time machine, and I’ll show you what I mean. This time we’re going to go back more than a thousand years, so you might want to take some Dramamine® before we get started. Ready? Hang on!

 

[epostle]

You okay? Sorry that took so long, but we’ve finally arrived in the north-African town of Hippo in the year 393. The Roman persecutions against Christianity ended just 80 years ago when Constantine legalized Christianity. The great St. Augustine was ordained to the priesthood two years ago, and is here in Hippo, but he won’t become bishop of Hippo until he succeeds the aging Bishop Valerius three years from now.
The reason I’ve brought you here is because the Synod of Hippo has just issued its own list of canonical books. Would you like to see it? Again, I’ll read it to you.

Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings , the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets , Isaiah, Jeremiah [including *Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras , two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church * shall be consulted
Synod of Hippo, Canon 29, A.D. 393..

Are you noticing a pattern here? Just like the councils of Florence and Trent, the Synod of Hippo also included the deuterocanonical books in its canon. In case you’re keeping track, this synod published its canon of Scripture 1,086 years before Martin Luther was born, 1,120 years before he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, and 1,149 years before the Council of Trent.

So now you know the truth. The Council of Trent did nothing new, it merely reaffirmed the same canon that was promulgated 104 years earlier by the Council of Florence, and the Council of Florence had merely reaffirmed the same canon that was promulgated by the Synod of Hippo in 393. The Catholic Church has officially accepted the same set of books from the fourth century on. The only change to the Bible that resulted from the Protestant Reformation was on the Protestant side, where these seven Old Testament books were downgraded and shunted off into an appendix, and eventually removed altogether.
web.archive.org/web/20040226202246/www.catholicoutlook.com/objbible1.html

 

[Cranch]

Hey epostle, that was fun but aren’t we still in 393? I’m getting hungry and I don’t see any KFC around here! Fire that thing up and let’s move!

 

[bogeydogg]

I guess I could answer this a couple of different ways but to keep the conversation going I will agree with you.

However, I often here about how such and such Catholic belief was handed on to the church from the apostles and oftentimes there is no evidence of this fact…well no evidence other than that of your church’s claim.
QUOTE]

First off you guess wrongly that I am Catholic; I am not though at a later time I may be but try to avoid “you guys” language unless you know for certain.

Second off, considering what the Church claims, the very existence of Jesus has only the smallest of outside evidence apart from the Gospels, Josephus and one Roman historian who’s name totally escapes me right now , and yet you seem to have no trouble at all believing in his existence of which we only know about in this day because the Catholic Church preserved the documents and teachings handed down by the Apostles concerning his life. So what do you want? Either the church is or is not authoritative but stop standing on ground built by Catholic Bishops and lobbing shells at the Church which gave you the dogmas you believe.

 

[Janet_S]

Epostle, thanks for the trip!

What can I say. I really wish I could understand the mentality of people who make the claim Catholics added books to the Bible. I honestly wish I could, but their logic escapes me. Instead, this is the argument I’m hearing: “those councils (Hippo, Carthage, Florence) don’t count, Catholics never settled on a canon until Trent, but Catholics did have a canon before Trent, actually they had competing views of the canon then, and sure enough they changed the canon at Trent.”

So in summary the charge is --we didn’t have a canon, we did have a canon, we had several canons, and we changed the canon. This is what I’m hearing, and it makes no sense to me.

Anyway, thanks for the enlightening post and a good laugh. (The dizziness is subsiding now.)

Janet

 

[Calvinator]

Epostle, thanks for the trip!

What can I say. I really wish I could understand the mentality of people who make the claim Catholics added books to the Bible. I honestly wish I could, but their logic escapes me. Instead, this is the argument I’m hearing: “those councils (Hippo, Carthage, Florence) don’t count, Catholics never settled on a canon until Trent, but Catholics did have a canon before Trent, actually they had competing views of the canon then, and sure enough they changed the canon at Trent.”

So in summary the charge is --we didn’t have a canon, we did have a canon, we had several canons, and we changed the canon. This is what I’m hearing, and it makes no sense to me.

Anyway, thanks for the enlightening post and a good laugh. (The dizziness is subsiding now.)

Janet

I’m not sure why you are dizzy.

In every debate I’ve ever heard on the canon the Catholic apologist will readily admit that there was no universally binding declaration of the canon until Trent. Newadvent.org says the same thing. It doesn’t look like this is too difficult a concept to grasp.

If the canon wasn’t defined…dogmatically (for lack of a better term) why would it confuse you to see various Catholics holding different views of the canon before Trent?

Didn’t your church only recently make it binding upon the conscious of faithful Catholics to believe such things as papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary? Weren’t Catholics a few centuries ago free to accept or reject these two doctrines?

It’s not that the earlier councils didn’t count but they were apparently not binding upon the church as a whole.

When a non-Catholic says you added the books to the canon they are simply saying the God didn’t inspire the books, therefore they are additions to the canon that God inspired.

 

[epostle]

In every debate I’ve ever heard on the canon the Catholic apologist will readily admit that there was no universally binding declaration of the canon until Trent. Newadvent.org says the same thing. It doesn’t look like this is too difficult a concept to grasp.

If you cannot give a reference to such debates, you are making a false claim. NewAdvent.org says no such thing either. If it does, please quote it.

If the canon wasn’t defined…dogmatically (for lack of a better term) why would it confuse you to see various Catholics holding different views of the canon before Trent?

That has already been mentioned. Again, there was a few Catholics, even bishops, who questioned the validity of the deuteros in the 16th century, not just the reformers. That is why the Church had to clarify and reaffirm the books that had always been there as inspired, to resolve the matter once and for all. There was no sudden declaration, but AFFIRMATION.

It’s various non-Catholics who not only invent nonsense about what we believe, but make silly claims that Catholics are not united in belief. “Various Catholics” you mention is a handful, less than a minority.

Didn’t your church only recently make it binding upon the conscious of faithful Catholics to believe such things as papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary? Weren’t Catholics a few centuries ago free to accept or reject these two doctrines?

This is a red herring, and no, Catholics have always believed what can later be formally declared. You see a distinction when in fact there is a unity. It is a complicated process that has little to do with the discussion.

It’s not that the earlier councils didn’t count but they were apparently not binding upon the church as a whole.

Wrong. What do you think “Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church * shall be consulted” means??? The Church in Rome made it binding on the whole Church after the findings of the Council of Hippo were delivered to Pope Damascus. *

When a non-Catholic says you added the books to the canon they are simply saying the God didn’t inspire the books, therefore they are additions to the canon that God inspired.

If that’s the case, no one can be sure the 27 books of the New Testament are all inspired either. You assume inspiration on books that the Catholic Church PROVED to be inspired, largely because you do not accept that the preservation of Sacred Scripture is a Sacred Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit, and you do not accept the strict criteria the Church used to PROVE inspiration of all the books.That is what makes this discussion so difficult.

Jesus and the Apostles accepted the dueteros.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

There are dozens more references that prove that Jesus and the Apostles believed the deutero’s to be inspired. You can find a larger list here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

 

[Calvinator]

If you cannot give a reference to such debates, you are making a false claim. NewAdvent.org says no such thing either. If it does, please quote it.

Try using simple logic here. If I don’t reference a specific debate, all that means is that I haven’t referenced a specific debate. It has nothing to do with whether or not my statement is true.

I know Sungenis and Pacwa discuss this in their debate with James White and I believe that Gary Michuta does also. I am sure you can go to catholicintl.com and find out what Sungenis has to say and you can google for Michuta’s website and see what he has to say about the matter.
"newadvent.org:

A. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (INCLUDING THE DEUTEROS) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

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

The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with you.

It’s various non-Catholics who not only invent nonsense about what we believe, but make silly claims that Catholics are not united in belief. “Various Catholics” you mention is a handful, less than a minority.

How is it nonsense to accurately and truthfully say that your supposedly infallible church didn’t infallibly declare the canon until Trent? The reason I have tried to give a few examples was to illustrate that the earlier councils didn’t solve the issue for the whole church.

This is a red herring, and no, Catholics have always believed what can later be formally declared. You see a distinction when in fact there is a unity. It is a complicated process that has little to do with the discussion.

No, it’s an example given to teach you something about your faith. How can a Catholic be held responsible for something that the church hasn’t formally declared?

Let’s take the assumption of Mary for our example. It was formally declared as doctrine less than a hundred years ago, right?

If you knowlingly reject the dogma now, you are guilty of mortal sin, right?

What about a Catholic who rejected the assumption of Mary back in say…1899? Was he guilty of mortal sin?

Your church doesn’t hold you responsible for accepting it’s doctrines before they are declared.

Note that I said absolutely nothing about when the belief first originated.

Wrong. What do you think “Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church * shall be consulted” means??? The Church in Rome made it binding on the whole Church after the findings of the Council of Hippo were delivered to Pope Damascus. *
Obviously I think one of the problems you guys have is you have to use you fallible human mind to try to figure out what is and what is and isn’t infallibly defined and as you have adequately proved, you have problems figuring out what is and what isn’t infallibly defined/declared and what isn’t.

Write to a professional Catholic apologist and ask them when the first infallible decree of the canon occured. It wasn’t until Trent.
epostle;2579841:

If that’s the case, no one can be sure the 27 books of the New Testament are all inspired either.

You don’t have to have an infallible authority to recognize what is and what isn’t scripture. As has been asked before, how did an OT Jew recognize that Proverbs, or II Kings or the book of Isaiah was scripture?

Jesus and the Apostles accepted the dueteros.

Matt. 6:19-20
Matt… 7:12
Matt. 7:16,20 …

There are dozens more references that prove that Jesus and the Apostles believed the deutero’s to be inspired. You can find a larger list here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Uh…no, the apostles and Jesus never, ever, not even once quoted the deutero’s in such a way that would lead someone to believe that Jesus or the apostles thought that the books were inspired.

First, Paul quoted from pagan sources, so accepting your above argument you must believe that Paul thougth that book was also canonical.

Secondly, nowhere do we have the apostles or Jesus saying anything that would lead us to believe that he deuteros were canonical. Something such as…“it is written…” or maybe the ever popular “thus saith the Lord”.

I’ll be out of town for a few days and will check back in later.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m not sure why you are dizzy.

In every debate I’ve ever heard on the canon the Catholic apologist will readily admit that there was no universally binding declaration of the canon until Trent. Newadvent.org says the same thing. It doesn’t look like this is too difficult a concept to grasp.

If the canon wasn’t defined…dogmatically (for lack of a better term) why would it confuse you to see various Catholics holding different views of the canon before Trent?

Didn’t your church only recently make it binding upon the conscious of faithful Catholics to believe such things as papal infallibility or the assumption of Mary? Weren’t Catholics a few centuries ago free to accept or reject these two doctrines?

It’s not that the earlier councils didn’t count but they were apparently not binding upon the church as a whole.

When a non-Catholic says you added the books to the canon they are simply saying the God didn’t inspire the books, therefore they are additions to the canon that God inspired.

I’m dizzy from the time travel.

I’m not confused by the various Catholics throughout history dissenting from the Church or by Catholics debating matters of doctrine that have not been formally defined by the Magisterium. If it were not for controversy and debates within the Church, there would have been no Council of Nicaea or any other Church Council for that matter. Dissention and debate are part of life.

I’m not getting sidetracked into discussing what Catholics are “free to accept or reject.” It’s beyond the scope of this thread.

What bothers me is the way your argument shifts (like I stated in my previous post–no canon, yes there’s a canon, there are many canons, and Catholics changed the canon, etc.) I’ve heard this same argument a few times before on this forum from other non-Catholics. It didn’t make sense to me then and it doesn’t now. If you want to say we had no formal canon before Trent, fine then make that claim. I realize Trent was the first infallible declaration the Church made regarding the canon even though it was the same declaration the Church made at Hippo, Carthage, and Florence. I’ve read New Advent too. Looking at it from that perspective the most you can claim is that at Trent we added 73 books to the canon of Scripture, not 7.

How do you know the books you accept are inspired? How do you know the Deuteros are not inspired? How did God reveal this to you?

It’s your tradition against my tradition. I’ll stick with mine.

 

[epostle]

Originally Posted by newadvent.org
A. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (INCLUDING THE DEUTEROS) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

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

The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with you.

No, the full context disagrees with you, because you have yet to learn the difference between “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement” and that which is dogmatic.

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. **Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei. **But this was not done by way of any formal decision; we should search the pages of the New Testament in vain for any trace of such action. The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
So, you like James White, eh?

How is it nonsense to accurately and truthfully say that your supposedly infallible church didn’t infallibly declare the canon until Trent? The reason I have tried to give a few examples was to illustrate that the earlier councils didn’t solve the issue for the whole church.

And you have been proven wrong on several occasions on that point. You can ignore Canon 29 of the Council of Hippo, 393 A.D., all day if you want, but it won’t go away. How can a person truthfully and honestly accept 27 books of the New Testament and claim the Church did not have the Holy Spirit re: the deuteros when they were made canon at the same time as the New Testament canon??? The bishops at the Synod of Hippo (who compiled your NT) forgot to say Mass that day, The Holy Spirit took a day off, and they made a mistake???

No, it’s an example given to teach you something about your faith. How can a Catholic be held responsible for something that the church hasn’t formally declared?

We are responsible for the dogmas given to us by Jesus and all of the Apostles preaching and scripture, all of which is the deposit of faith. It is summarized in the Creeds.

Let’s take the assumption of Mary for our example. It was formally declared as doctrine less than a hundred years ago, right?

See above. BTW, it is impossible for the Church to invent a doctrine.

If you knowlingly reject the dogma now, you are guilty of mortal sin, right?

Right. But a reveal truth must first be percieved, and received by supernatural faith, not the flesh of the mind. To reject anything under those conditions is a serious sin. God does not hold invincible ignorance agaist anybody.

What about a Catholic who rejected the assumption of Mary back in say…1899? Was he guilty of mortal sin?

Probably, but we leave it to God to decide.

Your church doesn’t hold you responsible for accepting it’s doctrines before they are declared.

Doctrines develop, they are not given to us to use like a phone book or repair manual the way some people abuse the Bible. I should add that scripture is, and always has been the PRIMARY source for doctrine, but not the only source. Profitable, yes, but not exclusive.

 

[epostle]

"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."
The History of Eucharistic Adoration
Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/manual/section1/sec1_12a.pdf

 

[Calvinator]

No, the full context disagrees with you, because you have yet to learn the difference between “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement” and that which is dogmatic.

Tell you what, ask one of the apologists here at CAF whether or not prior to Trent a catholic could hold a varying opinion of the canon and still be, for lack of a better term, in good standing with the church. The answer will be yes. Ask Michuta, I’m sure you can find his website with a simple search.

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. **Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fedei. **

Uh…did I say anywhere in this thread that the canon proclaimed at Trent varied from the earlier councils? I guess there is the issue of Trent passing over in silence a portion of the canon earlier established. But, accepting that, did I ever say that the two canons were different?

And you have been proven wrong on several occasions on that point. You can ignore Canon 29 of the Council of Hippo, 393 A.D., all day if you want, but it won’t go away.

Just step back and look at your post.

You quote from newadvent where it says that Trent was the first infallible pronouncement an now you say I’ve been proven wrong that Trent was the first infallible proclamation of the canon?

We are responsible for the dogmas given to us by Jesus and all of the Apostles preaching and scripture, all of which is the deposit of faith. It is summarized in the Creeds.

Right. But a reveal truth must first be percieved, and received by supernatural faith, not the flesh of the mind. To reject anything under those conditions is a serious sin. God does not hold invincible ignorance agaist anybody. Probably, but we leave it to God to decide.

Again, I know you won’t take my word for it, but ask one of the apologist here at CAF if you can be held responsible for “dogmas” that have yet to be declared.

I should add that scripture is, and always has been the PRIMARY source for doctrine, but not the only source. Profitable, yes, but not exclusive.

Please show me where in a catechism or a council your church has stated that scripture is the “primary” source for doctrine.

I know your church says that its doctrines aren’t supposed to contradict scripture, but that (even if it’s true) is not the same as having scripture as the primary source.

I’ll be out of town for a couple of days but maybe you can check with a more knowledgeable apologist while I’m gone and they can straighten you out.