- Status
A
adriancombe
Guest
There is no difference in content between the Councils of Hippo and Trent as far as the Canon goes. The only difference is the level of authority. The only reason the Council of Trent defined things in stronger terms is that the Protestant Revolt forced issue.
Yes, there were *theoretical * dissenters to the deuteros between Hippo and Carthage but they were submissive to the authority of the Church. Jerome had reservations about the deuterocanonicals but he obeyed the Pope and included them.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Besides which, these naysayers don’t even begin to deal with the dozens of writings that were in circulation in the first couple of centuries which the Church defined as either “useful but not canonical” or “spurious/dangerous.” Without the Church we’d still have to determine (individually, if you believe the Protestant position) whether the Gospel of the Hebrews was inspired Scripture. Or the Acts of Andrew. Or the Gospel of Thomas. Or the Shepherd of Hermas. Or, on the Old Testament side, the Assumption of Moses, the book of Enoch, etc. The list is long! How do they know that those books aren’t Scripture? They will tell you that the texts themselves demonstrate their inspired nature, but if that were so, there would not have been any need for the process that culminated in the council definitions.
It’s a tortured, circular argument that is forced upon them because without the Bible they have no basis for faith, but the Bible is only reliable because of the Authority of the Church, and they have to reject that Authority because if they accepted it they would also have to accept all those other teachings they reject.
It’s all about Apostolic authority.
It’s a tortured, circular argument that is forced upon them because without the Bible they have no basis for faith, but the Bible is only reliable because of the Authority of the Church, and they have to reject that Authority because if they accepted it they would also have to accept all those other teachings they reject.
It’s all about Apostolic authority.
J
Julian0404
Guest
“These charges” simply can be consolidate in the last sentence of your first paragraph “submit to the Catholic Church in matters of faith”. You work so hard at finding foot notes in history to walk away from the words of Jesus found in Matthew 16. Read again and focus on the quiz that Peter passed, while the other did not, i.e. “who do you say that I am” - paraphrase, Jesus asked the apostles. Peter answered you are the Christ the son of the living God - paraphrase. Jesus responds, mere men have not given that knowledge to you, but MY FATHER - paraphrase. and therefore, … Jesus goes on to appoint him head of Jesus Church to include the keys and the binding on earth and heaven. This is your issue, not the canon of scripture.
Know this. Throughout the Bible God the Father has intervened into human kind in the fullness of time and “personally” selected individuals to do His work, i.e.Noah, Abraham, Moses,Isacc, David, and Peter. And in the acts of the apostles, on the first pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended upon all the apostles to include the replacement for Judas, thus validating the process of selection for new apostles. Do not look to acts of men to substantiate your desire not to believe the words and acts of God the Father.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
C
crazzeto
Guest
There were a number of cousoles to deal with the Cannon of the bible. Non have ever contradicted the original Cousole of Hippo. Since that time there was also the counsole of Carthage (at the behests of St. Augustine). To help clear this up I suggest you take a look at "Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church " written by a former Anglican Bishop (Catholic Convert). This link will take you to the book online for free
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
It’s also worth owning, you can find it on amazon cheap.
Regarding Trent:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
It’s also worth owning, you can find it on amazon cheap.
Regarding Trent:
This quote comes from Chapter II, so you see. The point of trent was to settle once and for all, that unless a bible came packaged with a full old testament, i.e. septuigint and all NT books, then that book was not considered “the bible”. Prior counsoles settled the issues of which books were in fact inspired by God. Remember, the bible is in fact, a library of books, not a single book.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m tracking down a more definitive answer, but let me offer this in the interim:
The Canon and the Councils
Council of Rome (382 A.D.)
Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.
Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.
First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D… Carthage*, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. *
Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)
In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.
Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)
Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.
Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)
This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.
Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)
This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.
Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)
This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.
Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)
On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Luther and the Canon
Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized
Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger** provided the following in response to this issue: **
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was question by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.
Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said,
“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).
So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on do adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized
Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger** provided the following in response to this issue: **
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was question by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.
Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said,
“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).
So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on do adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I sent the OP to Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, and I just received the following reply:
Hi Randy,
I’m sorry, but I’m very pressed for time. Yet, I want to give you as much info as I can right now because I know how conversations move on in the forums.
First, I prefer to say that the councils make manifest the authentic canon and not “determine.” In a sense, God determines the canon by inspiring a certain number of book. It is the Church’s job to pass on what Christ has given to the Church. Therefore, the canon was more re-affirmed then determined.
Second, the objector is in error on a number of points. It’s not his fault, though. The articles in the NCE and even in the old CE are very poor. The canon of the OT was infallibly taught from the beginning through the ordinary magisterium of the Church. At times, the teaching was raised to new levels of solemnity. For example, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (there is considerable doubt whether there really was a council in Rome, so you might want to strike it from your list) met to reaffirm the canon against Jerome’s claims of Hebrew Verity and his rejection of the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha. Here the NCE is wrong because Jerome rejected it as “Apocrypha” not “Ecclesiastical books.” The term “ecclesiastical books” was used by Jerome’s friend Rufinius, but I’m not sure if Jerome ever used it. Pope Innocent I answered an enquiry by one of Jerome’s supporters, Bishop Exuperius for clarification on the canon and Innocent I repeated the Catholic canon. As far as the Church is concerned, the canon was settled by the ordinary magisterium and it was raised to a new level of solemnity by Hippo and Carthage since these were local councils approved by the Pope. These decrees were reaffirmed by subsequent councils, especially Florence. The decree at Trent is just as doctrinally authoritative as the others. The only difference is in regards to Church disciple, Trent added an anathema to its decree so that anyone who would deny it was under a canonical penalty. That’s it! In regards to the doctrine of the Faith, Trent merely reaffirmed what was already infallibly decrees by previous councils, papal documents, and the ordinary magisterium.
The NCE’s reasoning also fallacious.
"The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
By that line of reasoning, it would also be apparent that the question of Christ being of the same substance as the Father must not have been settled as well since Jehovah’s Witnesses, and sadly even some liberal Catholic theologians, deny it.
What happened was this. Jerome proposed his new belief that the Deuterocanon was human Apocrypha in the prefaces to his Latin Vulgate. The copies were sent out piecemeal to friends far and wide. Slowly, Christians began to react to his idea of “Hebrew Verity” in regards to the canon and the North African councils were called. Jerome’s view was condemned by these councils reaffirming the true Christian canon. However, the prefaces continued to be circulated with the Vulgate. The church as a whole officially followed Hippo and Trent. This can be seen in Pope Nicholas I’s statement in his Letter to the Bishops of Gaul that Innocent I’s decree on the canon was part of the “universal law of the Church.”
Catholic scholars were in somewhat of a bind. They had the prefaces to the Vulgate saying that the Deuterocanon was Apocrypha while the Church accepted them as canon. Some scholars attempted to twist Jerome’s words so that he affirmed their canonicity. Other simply recognized that Jerome’s doubt but does not personally follow Jerome in his usage while others, who held Jerome in the greatest esteem, tried to hold Jerome’s opinion and ignore the teachings of the Church or in a few cases actually state that Church doctrine should be made to conform to Jerome. Each writer should be examined separately.
I think the important thing to remember is that all, or nearly all, of those who contradicted the Church’s decree did so on the authority of Jerome alone. Moreover, early Protestantism also followed Jerome as well (e.g. Luther, Osiander, Zurich Bible, Geneva Bible (Calvin), the Anglican 39 Articles, et al.). Also, one should remember that Qumran has demonstrated that Jerome’s “Hebrew Verity” (upon which he based his rejection of the Deuterocanon) was false. Therefore, the Protestant’s appeal to Jerome and other fathers after him is moot.
I’m sorry, but I have to run. I’m also sorry that what I did give you is somewhat truncated. I hope you’ll find it helpful.
God Bless,
Gary
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The argument is nonsensical. When an infallible declaration is made, it does not mean that something suddenly became true at that point but not before. When the Church dogmatically declared Mary immaculately conceived in 1854, the Church was declaring a 2000 year old truth. Mary did not become immaculately conceived starting in 1854.
When the Council of Trent dogmatically approved the canon that had been accepted for well over 1,000 years by the western Church, the books didn’t suddenly become Scripture at that point. As Randy has noted, the canon has been pretty consistent from the time of Hippo and Carthage, including in the western Church. Gary Michuta’s book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger is the best treatment I’ve ever seen on the subject. Non-Catholics who make the arguments like the one quoted in the OP are just tilting at windmills. It is wishful thinking on their part that the 72-book canon was not commonplace until Trent.
When the Council of Trent dogmatically approved the canon that had been accepted for well over 1,000 years by the western Church, the books didn’t suddenly become Scripture at that point. As Randy has noted, the canon has been pretty consistent from the time of Hippo and Carthage, including in the western Church. Gary Michuta’s book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger is the best treatment I’ve ever seen on the subject. Non-Catholics who make the arguments like the one quoted in the OP are just tilting at windmills. It is wishful thinking on their part that the 72-book canon was not commonplace until Trent.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I think 405AD is the answer because that is when the canon was accepted by the pope.
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Thanks everyone.
Randy, can I quote you? (by the way, you’re more than welcome to join in
I left a cookie trail for ya to follow 
)
Randy, can I quote you? (by the way, you’re more than welcome to join in
I left a cookie trail for ya to follow )
P
panevino
Guest
I don’t have source and would love to know it,
but I recall a discussion about Jerome later writting that his intention was to
highlight that the Jews considered the deutros as apocrypha, not that it was his view.
Is that true?
Does any one have a copy of what the preface said?
Or a reference to his letter?
but I recall a discussion about Jerome later writting that his intention was to
highlight that the Jews considered the deutros as apocrypha, not that it was his view.
Is that true?
Does any one have a copy of what the preface said?
Or a reference to his letter?
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
St Jerome called the books Scripture in the following:
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2]—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age [Daniel 13:55-59 aka Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)—St Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119
“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.”—St Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16)—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45
For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.”—St Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390
“Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”[Wisdom 2:23] And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above–that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen–teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil … therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.” Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN”—St Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8
Holy scripture says: ““a tale out of season is as music in mourning.”” [Sirach 22:6]—St Jerome Letter 118 Section 1, Paragraph 2 To Julian
more here matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2]—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age [Daniel 13:55-59 aka Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)—St Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119
“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.”—St Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16)—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45
For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.”—St Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390
“Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”[Wisdom 2:23] And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above–that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen–teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil … therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.” Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN”—St Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8
Holy scripture says: ““a tale out of season is as music in mourning.”” [Sirach 22:6]—St Jerome Letter 118 Section 1, Paragraph 2 To Julian
more here matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]
P
panevino
Guest
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).
- Status