A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Wait a minute…maybe I am missing something, but why would someone who doesn’t accept the authority of the Pope, care about which books may or may not be canonical, as according to the Pope.?
- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sr_Brando. You asked . . . .
I just thought the sense he was using this was it was a Deuterocanonical book vrs. a Protocanonical book.
1st Maccabees was not “canonical” in a Protocanonical sense.
1st Maccabees is canonical in a Deuterocanonical sense.
There are Protocanonical a Deuterocanonical New Testament books too.
God bless.
Cathoholic
I didn’t think the Pope got it wrong.
I just thought the sense he was using this was it was a Deuterocanonical book vrs. a Protocanonical book.
1st Maccabees was not “canonical” in a Protocanonical sense.
1st Maccabees is canonical in a Deuterocanonical sense.
There are Protocanonical a Deuterocanonical New Testament books too.
God bless.
Cathoholic
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
To be fair, there were others who held this opinion of the 7 books…that while ‘inspired’ they were not necessarily of the same stature as the other 39. Referred to as having lesser authority. Even when the early Jews accepted them as canonical, it likely was not all Jews of that era.
That was Luther’s argument. That there were these personal opinions about them over the years.
But they were part of the Vulgate for over 1,000 years prior to Luther with no major disputes about inspiration post Jerome(who’s own opinion changed over time)
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
M
MT1926
Guest
BINGO!
That is the point I was trying to make with Jerome. If he won’t accept the other writings of Jerome or the fact that he admitted his error and did end up including the 7 books in his Latin translation, why does he accept that one statement of Jerome’s as authoritative???
If you noticed he skipped right over those facts.
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
That’s because I didn’t catch that side of the statement. I’ll reply when I can…
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
There is a serious historical flaw in your argument. It has to deal with the ordinary gloss, can’t spell out the actual Latin name off the top of my head…
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Fill me in - tell me why you think I’m in error
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ummm…no. I am quoting the inerrant Word of God.
Do you deny that the Scriptures state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
Go to the following article for the whole argument I’ve read:
christiantruth.com/Beckwith-Response-to-Return-to-Rome.html
Scroll down to the The Glossa Ordinaria section or CRTL ‘F’ and type that in to the search. It should find it pretty quickly.
But, to sum it up, this gloss was used as a tool, a summing up of commentary of the bible, which was highly influential in the 12th and 13th centuries. The gloss always stated that the DC or Apocryphal books were “not in the canon” in the preface of each of those books, as far as I understand. So here is a document, basing commentary on the early church fathers, which states, these books were not canon but “good reads”, being widely used and accepted all over the Western Church. And, yet, the Council of Trent, on the other hand, said to say such a thing would make you anathema.
So in citing William Webster right before the Marian Dogmas section, “It was the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant, which was responsible for the introduction of novel teachings very late in the history of the church.” To which, there is plenty of early church fathers who have spoken ont the matter and not given their consent, they disagreed.
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
I don’t have to accept him/them as authoritative as the CC does to understand the flow of history.
I accept them on an authoritative historical authentication level.
I don’t accept them as the same authoritative level as the CC believers do.
It’s not “they have authority or not at all”. That’s the bifurcation fallacy.
However, I can point out historical inconsistencies, which pose a big problems for the Catholic Church and her followers. But, I am not doing this to spite anyone. I do this because I honestly believe that the CC has departed from the faith once handed down. I care. And, if I am wrong, where else should I be but a Catholic Answers Forum! (I don’t think I am wrong. I am hard headed like that! hahaha)
PS: I stopped using RCC because I didn’t want that to get in the way of conversation. I do still, in my head, think RCC, but that’s not for insulting. That’s for entirely different reasons.
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
I deny that the church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.”
I accept that the church is "the pillar and buttress of the truth."1 Tim 3:15
And, if I’m not mistaken about what you’ve previously stated, your interpretation is not to be accepted based on your own standard. Your not quoting the the Catholic church’s official interpretation of this passage. Shouldn’t you be doing that to be consistent? I mean, what’s the point of having an infallible interpreter if you never quote from that source?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yipes!
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
I edited my post.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let me disabuse you of some mistaken ideas, Brando.
The CC does not have an official interpretation of this passage.
The CC simply is the the lens through which we read the Bible.
That is, the Bible is a Catholic book, produced by Catholics, for Catholics.
Those of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have departed from the One Faith are certainly welcome to read it, and to be nourished by its words, but when you don’t read it with the lens of the Faith which gave you this Book, you will end up with tens of thousands of differing, sometimes even contrary!, interpretations.
That’s just what the devil ordered.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Would you put the sake of your salvation on that statement? I mean, the Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. In the (American) south some folks like to say (seriously, you used to see it on bumper stickers), “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”.
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
Umm, how does that work? You question me all the time about an authoritative interpretation and then. when the argument is reserved you don’t have an authoritative interpretation? Isn’t that a double standard?
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s because your position is inconsistent, Brando.
You say the Bible is authoritative…and yet the Bible NEVER STATES THIS, and, in fact, the Bible states that SOMETHING ELSE is what’s authoritative…
and you deny the authority of this SOMETHING ELSE, yet submit to its authority to tell you that Hebrews is theopneustos but that the Epistles of Clement are not.
Isn’t that an incoherent position?
S
Sr_Brando
Guest
The bible says, “pillar and **buttress **” not foundation. That’s what I’m denying. And, I would stake my salvation on the church being the, “pillar and **buttress **” which is holding up “the truth.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Pillar and bulwark or Pillar and buttress = THE SAME THING, Brando.
Your Bible states it’s not the authority, but that the Church is.
You have simply believed something you heard your pastor say, who heard another pastor say this, who heard another pastor say this…
but no one ever read, in a single page of the Bible, that the Bible is the pillar of truth.
- Status