L
Lampo
Guest
Their belief that the books that are in their Bible belong there.
- Status
L
Lampo
Guest
Was it the final norm when determining its own canon? If not, what was the final norm in determining the canon of Scripture?
L
Lampo
Guest
That the Gospel of Mark is inspired.
God’s inspiration determines the canon. The interpretation of the Church as to what the canon is varies - Orthodox canon is different from Catholic canon is different from Lutheran canon. Certainly, we all agree on 66 books, just not on the others.
Jon
T
to_seek
Guest
T
to_seek
Guest
To finish answering to reply to my original posting, I left the Church initially because I could not get answers at that time from the correct authorities. I am on this site now because I wish to get answers for the reason I wish to return. One question being is how do you know that the Apostles were the forerunners of Popes. Maybe they simply preached, taught, healed and delivered people in Jesus name, and maybe that is what christians were always meant to do as a collective body of true believers.My belief about the universality of the church centres around that point. Do you really think all these divisions, dogmas and everything else in all the splits are pleasing to God? I dont. To the rest of the world of nonbelievers it all puts them right of christianity of any form. I resent my genuine questions being answered by those who dont know me, or my heart and attack me for having the guts to put my doubts out. I welcome dialogue with those who wish to help me, not prove a point. Thanks, to seek
S
skinny_pumpkin
Guest
to seek,
There is just no scriptural support for a presbyter being self appointed or selected by believers. none. There is scriptural support for presbyters being selected by the apostles. There is scriptural support for this structure.
Also, the very “canon” plus or minus the Apocrypha was selected by these presbyters.
Apostolic succession is either the norm, and is supported in scripture, or it is the biggest conspiracy theory of all time.
If Apostolic succession is true, then that leaves one with a handful of choices; Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics (Orthodox), Coptics, Anglicans, and even some Lutherans (Finnish I believe, but am not sure) and someone else I probably forgot.
I hope this helps. It is something I have considered heavily.
SP
S
steve_b
Guest
- scripture alone which is the rallying cry of the revolt condemns division from the Church.
- Henry VIII sure isn’t who you want your church built on.
Priests don’t have the authority to change the liturgy or the liturgical prayers. If what you say happened, did you notify the bishop?
re: popes and hand gestures, what are you talking about?
Re: occult signs, what are you talking about?
I
Izdaari
Guest
1 Corinthians 13 reads much the same in Protestant translations. (Not that I limit myself just to those: I have an NAB in my library, and a DR on order, which should be arriving this week.) And yes, most of us do believe it’s a very important passage.
L
Lampo
Guest
What is the mode of this determination?
There is only one Church and that Church does not vary on the canon of Scripture. The very first canon of Scripture that was determined by the Church around the year 382 AD is the very same canon in the Catholic Bible today. It hasn’t changed for 2,000 years.
Why do we agree on these 66 books? What authority do you defer to? If it’s the Holy Spirit, does the Holy Spirit tell you one thing and me another?
Why don’t we agree on the other seven? They were in the very first canon of Scripture and remained their for nearly 1,500 years until Martin Luther removed them based on his own authority.
So, the Orthodox Churches which see the canon larger than ours or yours is wrong?
Because these are the books historically that have not been sctongly challenged. There is a reason why the D-C’s have that name. They have been challenged throughout history from St. Jerome on.
See above. Cardinal Cajetan did not agree on the seven, for example.
Which truly ecumenical council (not local) set the very first canon? In addition, Luther included everyone of them plus the Prayer of Manasses, in his translation. The reason? Because in his time (pre-Trent) all the way back to St. Jerome, Catholics were allowed to debate what books were canonical. Luther, like many others before him and contemporary to him, had questions about their canonicity, but he clearly thought they should be included in the Bible, something modern American Lutherans could learn from.
Jon
L
Lampo
Guest
Yes.
Books being challenged doesn’t equate to them being non-inspired.
St. Jerome ultimately succumbed to the authority of the Church.
Cardinal Cajetan’s disagreement doesn’t mean the books were uninspired.
A Church council will only speak infallibly when there is confusion, scandal or heresy. This is what occurred because of the Protestant Reformation regarding the canon of Scripture (among many other things) and why the Council of Trent declared that the canon of Scripture that was established by the councils in the 4th century to be the correct canon.
Are you saying up until Trent the Church had uncertainty as to which books were inspired and should be included in Scripture?
Is Luther thinking they should be included the same as him thinking they are the inspired words of God? Why does it matter what he thought? Where did he get his authority? How did he determine that his authority usurped that of the Church’s?
Good! You are consistent. Some Catholics I’ve read here are more relativist about it for Orthodox than for western non-catholics.
I actually agree.
He did, indeed. And I would say that so did Luther, even though he didn’t have to, because he had already been excommunicated/
Agreed. I bring him up only because I perceive Luther being held to a different standard today than Catholics who questioned the D-C’s. Before Trent, Luther was exercising the freedom given to all Catholics, particularly scholars.
Were those fourth century councils truly ecumenical? Trent cannot be applied to Luther, since he was already dead.
I think there was disagreement within the Church amonst loyal Catholics right up until and even during Trent about the canonicity of the d-c books. Even the name duetero-canonical (name removed by moderator)lies that.
I think it is quite significant that, even after excommunication, he felt it important enough to translate 8 books and include them, even though he thought them not on the same level as the rest. What does it, then matter what any of us think? I think it is part of our exercising our faith to discuss and have opinions about things. Where do we need authority to do those things?
How did he usurp the authority of the Catholic Church? Are the d-c’s separated into a section between the OT and the NT in your Bible? Is the Prayer of Manasses included in yours? The authority of the Catholic Church is clearly intact, wouldn’t you say?
Beyond that, and in the spirit of honesty, I’m not convinced that Luther was right regarding the canon. I certainly think American Lutherans - myself included - ought to rethink the inclusion of them in our Bibles. We are certainly free to do this, as the Book of Concord does not close the canon.
Jon
L
Lampo
Guest
He did not. Luther could have always become un-excommunicated by repenting and succumbing to the authority of the Church. Did he not think that the D-C’s were un-inspired?
I would say that Luther did more than just exercise a freedom to question the inspiration of books of the Bible.
Personal opinion on what happened… they hold no weight…
- ML comes up with an initial list of items that he saw as issues.
- CC looks at list and goes… You hit the nail on the head for a number…
- ML returns and says… But all are issues.
- CC responds… Hold on, just `cause you were right on a few, doesnt mean everyhting.
- ML: Well, the fact that you dont see it means i must be right.
- CC: Careful!
- ML: you know what else… you got the canon all wrong too…
- CC: I hate to do this, but your fired
- ML: Wow… by the way… I also noticed that all you need is faith and the bible.
- CC: Everyone… please ignore this guy…
- ML: Hmm… If you arent able to even look at and agree with me, this must mean your not the real church after all… Its up to me to restore the true church.
There was disagreement among individual Catholics just like today there is disagreement between individual Catholics. Some Catholics today think they know better than the Church and consider artificial birth control okay. That doesn’t mean the Church is confused. The teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) has spoken on both issues, which means it is not open for debate.
Did he think those 7 books were inspired? Do Protestants accept those 7 books as the Word of God? Why or why not? If they don’t, aren’t they following a tradition of a man (Luther)?
Some things we can have opinions on. Some things are prudential and some things are not. As a Catholic, I do not have to believe in the apparitions at Fatima. As a Catholic, I *must *believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. It doesn’t matter if I think the Eucharist is merely symbolic (I don’t think this), the truth still remains. This is the whole problem with sola scriptura. Everyone interprets Scripture for themselves with themselves as the only authority. They are their own pope, so to speak. We need an authority that is the defender and upholder of the truth (see 1 Tim. 3:15). What if my opinion is that the books of Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch are the Word of God and your opinion is that they are not the Word of God. What authority do we go to? What authority did Luther go to to decide this?
By removing (meaning he didn’t think them to be inspired) 7 books of the Bible. Teaching that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. That we are justified by faith alone. By adding the word “alone” in Romans. By claiming no one needs the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
No. My Bible is laid out the same as the very first Bible. 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books.
The Prayer of Manassas was never considered a part of the Canon of Holy Scriptures, but was included for a time in some versions of the Latin Vulgate because it was still considered fit for reading, and naturally included a clear introduction that it was not a part of the Canon. Some translators chose to keep it because of the beauty in style. There is probably no Catholic Bible that has included it for at least 200 years.
The Catholic Church follows the Greek Septuagint, the work of approximately 70 Jewish authors, who translated the Hebrew texts into Greek, as Greek was more commonly used by the Jews than Hebrew at the time. This translation was done about 300B.C.
L
Lampo
Guest
(con’t)
Absolutely.
Then why on Earth are you Lutheran? If you think he could have been wrong regarding the canon, why couldn’t he have been wrong about everything? Don’t you need certainty? Why are you convinced he was right about the Bible being the sole rule of faith? He certainly did not have the promise by the Holy Spirit to be guided into all truth. Only the Church has that promise. Not individuals of the Church, but only the Church.
When you and American Lutherans rethink the inclusion of those books, what guarantee do you have that you will be right in your conclusion? This is a reason we need an authority and the reason Jesus left us one - a Magisterium!
Could the Book of Concord be wrong?
Remember that Luther’s excommunication was not because of his view on the canon, and many others held them, too. Yes, I believe he held them to be at a lesser level than the canon.
From Cr. Cajetan:
It is an interesting viewpoint.
The canon was open for debate in Luther’s time. That debate closed (for Catholics ) at Trent.
No, not in the sense I think you mean, which is that only Rome has the authority to settle these matters. The rest of Christianity doesn’t agree with that perspective. We believe there is anough testemony from the early Church on to question the canonoicity of the d-c’s, just like we both question the books Orthodoxy alone consider canon.
I think I’ve responded to this above.
The canon I’ve mentioned, as well as sola scriptura. On sola fide, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification has moved us much closer.
And I wouldn’t say that “no one needs” the Magisterium, that is, teachers. We just require that teachers are accountable to scripture. There are many things the CC teaches that I agree with.
And this is what Luther said about the other 7.
continued
Of course I need certainty. But I’m more far less certain about Purgatory, indulgences, and universal jurisdiction and infallibility. You say only the Church has the promise; which part of the Church? Which patriarch now holds that promise of “all Truth”?
See above.
Could Rome?
Jon
L
Lampo
Guest
Where did Luther’s authority to declare those books uninspired come from?
Cr. Cajetan was not speaking infallibly for the Church. Nor could he.
Where did his authority to do that come from?
L
Lampo
Guest
You can find that certainty in the Catholic Church.
That will come with time. The Church can back up 100% of everything she claims.
The Magisterium. A single “patriarch” does not have the promise unless you are thinking of the pope when he speaks ex cathedra.
Yes. It could when the pope speaks ex cathedra or the when the bishops in communion with the pope speak. And remember what I said, the Church can back up this claim that Jesus left this responsibility to the Catholic Church.
Luther didn’t declare it. He, like many others, questioned their canonicity. Perfectly allowed in his time.
Agreed, but the point was that simply hold the position that they were not canon was not cause for excommunication, or any kind of discipline. It was allowed until Trent for the Caridnal and for Luther.
To comment on the fact that the d-c’s were good to read? I think it was Jerome who said the same thing. Did someone have to have authority to have opinions regarding the canon in Luther’s time?
Jon
- Status