istm that trent's affirmation of florence was in response to the splintering of the Church by the protestant reformation... kinda like...and in case anyone was wondering, let's make sure we are clear here...nothing has changed in the canon of Holy Scripture

First of all the Scripture accepted by Sola Scriptura clearly states faith is a gift of God, not of ourselves, and not accomplished by works (Ephesians). Human reason is a product of the work of the human mind.

But you ask, "What is faith?" Scripture gives a us a definition and detailed description of faith in Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11:1 wrote:
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

The definition defies reason. Confidence in hope? Assurance of something that cannot be see? To be sure during the time of the writing of this Holy Scripture, technology was not at the point of proving things that couldn't be seen, such as molecules and atoms, or planets and distant stars and galaxies or the earth was round and not flat. No, confidence in hope and assurance in things not seen were not reasonable to the reason of the human mind.


Hebrews 11:17-19 wrote:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.



Hebrews 11:28 wrote:
By faith he [Moses] kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.

No amount of human reasoning could cause one to believe the first inside that house would be protected if there was such a thing as a destroyer. It was an act of faith beyond reason.

The issue here is not about the Catholic Church, it is about Sola Scriptura. But it seems you are not an adherent of Sola Scriptura and in that you agree with the Catholic Church's position it is incorrect and not in keeping with the fullness of faith.

You say the "Church" simply recognized that which was true, but cannot offer anything in the way it came about? And you continue to name the "Church" making this recognition. Somebody had to somehow decide that what had been accepted as Holy Scripture for over a millenium needed a few books tossed out. Who was it and why?


So, is there other "Word of God" not found only in Holy Scripture?

The Bible replaced the Church?

I was thinking and asking about other written Word of God in keeping with the theme of Sola Scriptura.

I should have quoted what I was responding to, which was:

Sure, faith is the gift of God. And I would agree with your the definition of faith, for the most part. But we shouldn't use this notion of faith as throwing reason to the wind, as it is often used. This is dangerous for Christians today, and it makes the world less apt to respect our views.

Anyway, you are still attempting to reason with me regarding the definition of faith. It's inescapable. The word of God requires some level of reasoning, some level of thought. It's not a false dilemma of EITHER faith OR reason. It's both. But truth should be true to both. Faith should not violate reason, in my view.

By reason I mean logical, abstract thought, not some kind of empirical, scientific reasoning.




Sure it could. I have reason to have faith in the God and trust His word. If He says this, I believe Him. 'Faith' is trust in God, not believing crazy things just because. By that rationale the Muslim is as properly faithful as the Catholic.





The issue here is if Tradition is the infallible word of God as Scripture is known to be. If it is not, then we are left with 'Sola Scriptura.' You have yet to answer my question, but I'll answer yours...

I've already said that the Church made this decision. The issue is whether it made the decision using reason or simply on the weight of it's own office. I would say the former...
And if they reasoned their way into it then reason is more important than tradition.




I don't think so in the explicit sense, but the truth of God can be known by other sources, including tradition.

So they were both not infallible, ecumenical councils then.

And Florence was probably using the deuterocanonicals as backing for the burgeouning doctrine of purgatory. But that's a supposition...

I think the fact that earlier councils affirmed different canons, and the disagreement amongst the Jews and ECF's shows that the the canon has indeed changed. That's not the issue, but we are discussing if the change is for the better or not.

why would you consider them both to not be infallible Ecumenical Councils based on what i said?

the Canon has not changed since the late 4th century for the Latin Church ... that i am aware of

Based on reading historical sources. It seems that the council of Florence did not claim infallibility.

This seems to be correct, as two councils within a hundred years of one another don't need to affirm the same truths both universally and infallibly. Correct me where I'm wrong, with a reference if possible.

Secondly, there is the issue of including the deuterocanonicals as texts applicable for study and as inspired Scripture (e.g. the Word of God). Does including these texts as adequate for teaching equate to calling it Scripture?

Finally, considering that Cardinal Cajetan did not agree with these books, and he was Reformation era, seems to indicate that these were not official canon as of yet.

Again, this is not a huge point of contention for me. We are determining of Tradition is on the same level as Scripture, I'd thought. The Apocyrpha are just a symptom of what I think is the main problem.

David, I haven't forgotten to respond to you. I have been working on your post which had a lot of questions and good subject matter to pursue.

My answer to you thus far is 4 pages long. And I haven't even gotten to your response on Luther.

I'm thinking that now I need to edit it down.....

Hope you had a good weekend!


It's no problem, take your time.

In order to shorten, I would suggest just giving me links rather than long quotes. I will read them.

Any evidence of ECF's referencing from the deuterocanonicals should preferably be done in the context of their calling it 'holy Scripture' on par with other OT and NT documents...not just quoting from one of these books. These writers quoted from all kinds of sources, quoting from them doesn't mean much.

Also, we should stick to the Tradition/Truth subject matter, if possible. The 'Apocrypha' are just a symptom of this deeper issue, in my opinion. Our differing opinions on Luther aren't really an argument either way for Tradition or the Apocrypha, right?

Thanks for your time and attention!

yeah, I am trying to limit the length of the quotes, the time consumption is research and verification. I try not to just put something out there without first verifying it's source.

As far as Luther goes, there is some correction to a misconception you stated.

By the way, when you say "Apocrypha" I keep thinking of the 50 some odd books that didn't make the Bible.

oh you mean the real apocrypha

Wisdom, quoted by St. Clement. Ecclesiasticus 4:36, found in the Didache (chapter 4.) Tobit, quoted by St. Polycarp. Daniel 13:52,53 and 56 quoted by St. Iraneus (Paragraph 3) which is not found in your bible.

Those are just a few.

But even more importantly is the number of times that the deuterocanonicals are referred to in the New Testament itself.

1 Peter 1 [6] Wherein you shall greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in divers temptations: [7] That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ:'

Wisdom 3 [5] Afflicted in few things, in many they shall be well rewarded: because God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself. [6] As gold in the furnace he hath proved them, and as a victim of a holocaust he hath received them, and in time there shall be respect had to them.

Ecclesiasticus 2 [5] For gold and silver are tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

1 Peter 1 [17] And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one's work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.

Ecclesiasticus [13] According as his mercy is, so his correction judgeth a man according to his works.

Acts 17 [29] Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man.

Wisdom 13 [10] But unhappy are they, and their hope is among the dead, who have called gods the works of the hands of men, gold and silver, the inventions of art, and the resemblances of beasts, or an unprofitable stone the work of an ancient hand.

1 Corinthians 10 [20] But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

Baruch 4 [7] For you have provoked him who made you, the eternal God, offering sacrifice to devils, and not to God.

These are just a few of the references.


Well I have given you a start. But there are many volumes of the writings of the ECFs. I’ll give you a link, since you are the one in doubt, you can take a stroll through them:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

I think to that to expect them to always label it "Holy Scripture" is erroneous. Every time that the ECFs quoted Scripture they did not first preface it with "This is Scripture" or "This is inspired". What you need to do is look at the weight of authority they gave to the quote. When Iraneus quotes from Daniel 13 he speaks of hearing those words of the Prophet Daniel.

Except those closest to the events surrounding these books were sure about them. The Septuagint had been used by Jews for 2 ½ centuries before Christ was even born.

As far as the Jews not accepting the Deuterocanonicals as sacred Scripture, where do you think their tradition of lighting candles for Hanakah came from? I’ll give you a hint, it is to be found in Maccabees.

You are quite wrong to say that the Jews in the 1st century did not accept the deuterocanonicals as sacred Scripture. The Septuagint (which included what you would call Apocrypha) was used by the Greek speaking Jews (of which St. Paul was one) for their sacred Scripture. There is pretty conclusive proof that those Jews who converted to Christianity used the Septuagint. Again, I must ask, why do you go to the Jews AFTER they had rejected Christ and rejected His Church as your authority for Scripture?

One of the main reasons that the Jews rejected the Septuagint was that it was written in Greek and not Hebrew. But Greek was the cultural language of the time in many lands where Jews had settled.

A point to consider, the Dead Sea Scrolls has been found to have more in common with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic Scripture. And the Septuagint is the oldest translation of the Old Testament. And far older than the Masoretic text. Lastly, the excuse for not including the Deuteros because they were not written in Hebrew falls away in the light of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls where the deuterocanonicals were discovered written in Hebrew.


Because the RCC tells you to. If Genesis was not to be found in any of the Bibles at the time of the Protestant Revolution I find it highly doubtful that any Protestant whether they be Luther or anyone else would have gotten away with adding it to the Bible.

And his rejection and reasoning for removing 7 books is just as faulty as yours is. For he rests upon those self-same Jews for his authority, rejecting that the Early Christians did indeed have and use the Septuagint as their source.


I already pointed out to you and gave you the quotes where St Jerome himself called them Scriptural.

However, I will leave you this quote:

"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 Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

And St. Iraneus complains in “Against Heresies” of the Jews altering Scripture when refuted by Scripture concerning the Messiahship of Christ. He also defends the Septuagint as unadulterated.


But in your acceptance of the Jews and what they teach in rejecting the Deuterocanonicals (and well after Christ died and established His Church) you believe that the Jews who rejected Christ are inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant in what they discern to be Scripture, rather than the Church.

But it really is even worse than that, for it is just some of the Jews that you take for your authority - the Pharisees. It's a good thing for you though, that it was from Pharisees that later defined the Jewish canon. If it had been the Sadduccees, you would have been left with only the 5 books of the Torah who did not consider the writings of the Prophets and the historical writings to be divinely inspired.

I appreciate you finding those quotes, but I'm not sure referencing something equates to it being inspired, on par with other Scripture, in every case. Especially given the arguments from whom the books were spawned (the Jews).





This is a problem, to be sure, but they referenced many writings. This does not make them Scripture.

Also, since Jesus references the entire canon 'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.' He also references the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.' Where do the deuterocanonicals fit in there?





So this is evidence that they thought if it as scripture, even though they explicitly did not consider it Scripture? Again, we may confuse useful books of history with the 'word of God.' Is it the word of God?

See, I think that God's word = truth and truth cannot contradict. So the Apocrypha cannot be God's Word since it contradicts truth.

For instance, Tobit 7
Tobit 6
Tobias Catches a Fish
1 So Tobias and the angel started out toward Media, taking Tobias' dog along with them. They walked on until sunset, then camped by the Tigris River.2 Tobias had gone down to wash his feet in the river, when suddenly a huge fish jumped up out of the water and tried to swallow one of his feet. Tobias let out a yell,3 and the angel called to him,
Grab that fish! Don't let it get away.

Then Tobias grabbed the fish and dragged it up on the bank.

4
Cut the fish open, the angel instructed,
and take out its gall bladder, heart, and liver. Keep these with you; they can be used for medicine, but throw away the guts.

5 Tobias did as the angel had told him. Then he cooked the fish, ate part of it, and salted the rest to take along with him.

The two continued on together until they were near Media.6 Then Tobias asked,
Azarias, my friend, what diseases can be cured by this gall bladder, heart, and liver?

7 The angel answered,
The heart and liver can be burned and used to chase away a demon or an evil spirit that is tormenting someone. The attacks will stop immediately, and the person will never be troubled again.8 You can use the gall bladder to treat someone whose eyes are covered with a white film. Just rub it on his eyes and blow on the film, and he will be able to see again.


Here we are commanded to use magic, healing with fish parts.





I can't understand how a Greek Jew would look past a completely different canon because it was in a different language. Is there any evidence that the DC were in the 1st century Septuagint? Because all of the earliest transcripts dated from the 4th Century, I thought.






It seems Jesus was in error then as well, through Paul, according to the RCC. Since Paul writes that the Jews 'were entrusted with the oracles of God.' Romans 3:2

Why would we listen to them? Let's follow a group of people hundreds of years later!





Hm. Because he also says this:

'The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew….
For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions
with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew.... After all, both
Origen, Eusebius and Appolinarius and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of
Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrew,
and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no
authority as Holy Scripture.'

The Jews reject it, so Jerome does.




So their writings are inspired but they cannot be trusted to understand who speaks with the word of God and who does not? I take Jesus as my authority, and He affirmed the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

I understand where you are going with the question. However, the word "infallible" in not the correct word to use in this matter. Read the following, written by Karl Keating (source):

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. I wish they would stop. It is a misconstrual of the word. I know they mean well, but they are abusing a good and useful theological term.

Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.

When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).

Put another way, the active agent is alive and capable of making decisions. A human being is an active agent. Normally human beings are fallible. Sometimes they decide rightly, and sometimes they decide wrongly. In a few instances (such as the pope when speaking ex cathedra or the bishops united with the pope when speaking through an ecumenical council) human beings may decide infallibly.

But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.

The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.

The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.

Inerrant would not be the word to use about, say, a pope. A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he "contains" no error, but every pope does. A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.

When Vatican I (1869–70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

Like other disciplines, theology has words of art. For them to convey their true meaning, we must use them accurately. We need to understand that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible—but not the other way around.


http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp

Feel free to argue with Steve Ray over it. The questions belong to him.

Maybe we'll let Karl Keating and Steve Ray argue, since I quoted Karl.
I'll bring the popcorn.