O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Christ was able to make the Bible available again to us regardless of the fact that it had been kept from us for so long. What makes you think everyone was illiterate?
- Status
D
DarkMark
Guest
No the 7 books were not accepted by Christians. It was mostly heretics that wanted to accept them. When Jerome translated the Hebrew into Latin, he refused to list the 7 books as he knew they were aprocryphal. Augustine was the one who insisted he list them and when he did, he made sure he posted a notice saying they were not canonical and were to be read for reading purposes and historical issues only. They were never accepted by Christians until the Roman Catholics declared them canonical at Trent.
Where are you getting your History? From an Anti-Catholic site? The Majority of Christians accepted the deutrocanon.
As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Before I go on:
Note, that “canonical” does not mean it is not Inspired Scripture. Both Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome wrote that there were Scriptures. The word “canon” means, by the most Fathers, books that are Scripture but are not read within the Church. But they are still God-breath!
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
“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.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
Did Jerome has doubts about these books? Yes, but he later submitted to the Authority of the Church. St. Jerome doesn’t make any distinctions between the other Scriptural books that he uses to speak on doctrine. He still use the 7 books, as Scripture to prove doctrines.
Saint Augustine still use these books as Scriptures, but note that these books were not “canonical” (books that are not read in the Church, but are still Scripture).
Looks like Old Scholar have not study His History.
Where are you getting your History? From an Anti-Catholic site? The Majority of Christians accepted the deutrocanon.
As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Before I go on:
Note, that “canonical” does not mean it is not Inspired Scripture. Both Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome wrote that there were Scriptures. The word “canon” means, by the most Fathers, books that are Scripture but are not read within the Church. But they are still God-breath!
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
“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.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159
Did Jerome has doubts about these books? Yes, but he later submitted to the Authority of the Church. St. Jerome doesn’t make any distinctions between the other Scriptural books that he uses to speak on doctrine. He still use the 7 books, as Scripture to prove doctrines.
Saint Augustine still use these books as Scriptures, but note that these books were not “canonical” (books that are not read in the Church, but are still Scripture).
Looks like Old Scholar have not study His History.
D
Dauphin
Guest
These groups rejected the legitimate authority of the Church founded by Christ in favor of their own peculiar interpretations of scripture. No one has the authority to interpret scripture except that institution which wrote, canonized, and preserved it.
Nothing in scripture contradicts the Catholic faith. The views of these schismatics were in error.
**
**
Are you being serious? When Latin was first used in the liturgy, it was the vernacular language. As it ceased to be the vernacular, local languages would be used for the readings from scripture and the sermons by the priest. The idea that Latin was used to “hide” the meaning of the Mass is ludicrous. The idea that “no one” understood what was being said is even more ridiculous. If you have evidence that priests refused to answer questions about the Mass, present it.
**
**
And if it had been published in the vernacular centuries before, who would have read it? There was virtually no literacy among the general public.
Anyone who wanted to study the Bible would simply learn Latin. All educated people could read Latin. There was no reason for a widely distributed vernacular translation.
G
GoneFishin
Guest
As far as Mass in Latin, I am sure you know that if you were literate at the time you also knew how to speak in Latin. The fact that 5 groups broke away shows why everybody interprets the bible to their own belief. 5 groups back then and how many more to this day 30,000-38000 protestant denominations? And they still don’t understand the fullness of the RCC. Even if the bibles were in English that doesn’t mean everybody knew how to read at the time. By that time (even present time) they were printing their own interpretation of the bible anyways to go along with their 5-30,000 different churches…No unity
R
ricmat
Guest
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you have an issue with about what is said at Mass?
Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass?
D
DarkMark
Guest
The Majority of Christians accepted the seven books. Besides that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Deutrocanoncal books, all Church Fathers accepted them as Scriptures, while some did mention they were no canonical (books not read in the Church). The Word “canonical” had different meanings with the Early Church.
The Earliest Church is Polycarp of Smyrna
“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).
The Christian community or Churches by the late 300 AD canonized Scripture in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD which included the 7 Books more Books in the OT and the 27 Books in NT.
It was not until the Council of Trent did the Catholic Church added the the seven books! Jesus and the Apostles use them because they Greek Version of OT included them!
The Earliest Church is Polycarp of Smyrna
“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).
The Christian community or Churches by the late 300 AD canonized Scripture in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Carthage in 396 AD which included the 7 Books more Books in the OT and the 27 Books in NT.
It was not until the Council of Trent did the Catholic Church added the the seven books! Jesus and the Apostles use them because they Greek Version of OT included them!
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
I have taken the liberty of increasing the font in certain places in your post…
The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)
From this quote, we can understand that Athanasius did believe that one should follow Sacred Traditions. Now let explain the previous quotes. St. Athanasius affirms the sufficiency of Scripture as long as they are understood within the framework of the Church’s Tradition. We know this from His other quotes.
That’s just an opinion. He didn’t say that. And I see no mention there at all of "sacred traditions."
St. Athanasius: “[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth…”
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409St. Athanasius condemns the Arians for not using the ecclesiastical scope as a guide for interpreting Scripture. Without the Church, one cannot interpret Sacred Scriptures. Scripture is sufficient when it is read within the milieu of the Church’s Tradition. One still needs the Church Traditions. Athanasius believe that the Council of Nicea had authority, does this sound like a Bible alone preacher?
Again, just your opinion.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
And more from Augustine:
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
Saint Augustine
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
This is not a faith situation, but a traditional one. It doesn’t say you should baptize or not. That is well covered other places in Scripture.
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]).
Saint Augustine believe in Bible alone? Yea Right!
Then you believe part of what Augustine said but not the rest???
I believe you are misunderstanding the Fathers belief that the Bible has authority, but also there is Traditions. Looks you haven’t study the Fathers afterall.
I agree that tradition has its place but not in matters of faith or morals.
St Iraenus did not believe in Bible alone. All he said is if the OT did not speak of Christ, he will not believe the Gospel. He did not say believe OT + NT Alone!
He said he would not believe it if it was not in Scripture.
I will explain the others in a bit.
And more from Athanasius:
The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)
Code:
"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." *Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).*That’s just an opinion. He didn’t say that. And I see no mention there at all of "sacred traditions."
St. Athanasius: “[T]hat of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth…”
[6] Orationes contra Arianos 3:28 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:409St. Athanasius condemns the Arians for not using the ecclesiastical scope as a guide for interpreting Scripture. Without the Church, one cannot interpret Sacred Scriptures. Scripture is sufficient when it is read within the milieu of the Church’s Tradition. One still needs the Church Traditions. Athanasius believe that the Council of Nicea had authority, does this sound like a Bible alone preacher?
Again, just your opinion.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
And more from Augustine:
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
Saint Augustine
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
This is not a faith situation, but a traditional one. It doesn’t say you should baptize or not. That is well covered other places in Scripture.
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]).
Saint Augustine believe in Bible alone? Yea Right!
Then you believe part of what Augustine said but not the rest???
I believe you are misunderstanding the Fathers belief that the Bible has authority, but also there is Traditions. Looks you haven’t study the Fathers afterall.
I agree that tradition has its place but not in matters of faith or morals.
St Iraenus did not believe in Bible alone. All he said is if the OT did not speak of Christ, he will not believe the Gospel. He did not say believe OT + NT Alone!
He said he would not believe it if it was not in Scripture.
I will explain the others in a bit.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
N
Newbie2
Guest
tradition or Tradition? There is a difference; if you understood what Tradition (big T) really means to the Catholic Church, you could base your arguments not just on your opinion, but on facts of Tradition.
Read Yves Congar, and get back to us.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
The Trinity is covered quite well in scripture.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
This was my question actually.
So you admit that you accept the bible in faith without regard to how it came into being?
Do you not find it “weird” that you would just pick one source of data over another as your (name removed by moderator)ut? Care to share your faith on how you came to the conclusion that the bible was inspired and not fabricated in the same way you seem to think tradition is unreliable and not worthy of consideration? What made you pick one over the other? Is it based on anything more rational than a disdain for all things “Roman” Catholic? So far it seems that anti-Catholicism seems to be the common locus of principal centering your belief system. Did the RC Church do something to you or your family at some time in your past or family history to cause you to hold contempt? Have you or a family member ever been excommunicated? You seem fairly intelligent in many ways but yet in others you seem to have a bias against all things “Romanish”?
As for me I certainly believe the bible and everything in it that The Church teaches. But in that I also trust the Church to resolve questions that arise from my own readings from her rich wisdom and traditions. So I, like all adult Catholics are permitted and even encouraged as a lay person to independently read the bible (and tradtion) and gain deeper insights. I cross check my own insights against teaching to make sure I am not wandering far afield.
I am curious how do you objectively and independently check your own interpretations of scripture or do you just assume you are always right? Are you not the same person who spoke in another thread today that all humans are fallable? What do you do to safeguard your salvation through fallable self interpretation of scripture?
James
D
Dauphin
Guest
Not everyone. The clergy were literate, since the capacity to read scripture was essential to being a priest or a monk - responsible for teaching the laity the faith of the Church. Among the laity, though, literacy was much weaker. The public schools of Roman times died out by the 7th century, and there was simply no public education. Those laity, typically of the upper classes, who could read and right, were usually literate only in Latin - not the vernacular, which was used for common speech.
Bibles were uncommon not because the Church wanted to hide them, but because they were very expensive and time consuming to reproduce; the printing press was only invented toward the end of the middle ages.
D
Dauphin
Guest
It is never explicitly stated that God is one being in three persons, and that these persons are all eternal and given equal worship. This was the purpose of the Nicene Creed, which was a legitimate and inspired expression of the Catholic faith on the part of the Church. It was an exercise of the authority of the magisterium
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
P
pete_29
Guest
The Bible is only part of the truth.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yes, that’s a good point. If I recall correctly, the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the bible. The notion of Trinity came about as a part of Tradition, (Big T), did it not, or am I incorrect about the word appearing in Scripture?
D
Dauphin
Guest
You’re correct. The formula for baptism (“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) does appear, though.
The Trinity is another part of Catholic Tradition that some protestants reject. On the supposed authority of scripture, of course.
P
pete_29
Guest
Is Christ so impotent that it took Him 1500 years to “give” us the Bible?
N
Newbie2
Guest
D
Dauphin
Guest
Where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught? And don’t give me that “scripture is useful” quote!
- Status