Apocrypha and Roman Catholic doctrine

[Gary]

Apocrypha and Roman Catholic doctrine

How have these books influenced your Doctrines?

Substantially. The Council of Trent affords these books full canonical status and pronounces an anathema (excommunication) on any who reject them. The Council stated: “If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts . . . and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid tradition let him be anathema.â€Â

So I guess all born-again, Bible-believing Christians and all other non-Roman Catholics are anathema according to the Roman Catholics!

Doctrinally, the Apocrypha supports prayers for the dead (which also entails a belief in purgatory). For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:46 reads: “Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.â€Â

By the way, the Greek church has not always accepted the Apocrypha, nor is its present position unequivocal. At the synods of Constantinople (a.d. 1638), Jaffa (1642), and Jerusalem (1672) these books were declared canonical. But even as late as 1839 their Larger Catechism expressly omitted the Apocrypha on the grounds that its books did not exist in the Hebrew Bible. This is still their position.

Source for some of this:
Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 164).

The Council of Trent didn't give them canonical status- they had the status since the early centuries. That's why the Orthodox (11th Century) and Coptics (5th Century) use them. It wasn't until the 16th Century that protestant removed them from the bible... perhaps because of the prayers for the dead?

Don't try and twist the facts by saying when they were 'declared'... something is 'declared' when it becomes a controversy... which is did after the reformation.

Don't try and twist the facts. It is very clear what the Roman Catholic "church" pronounced an anathema (excommunication) on any who rejected them. By definition, therefore, the individuals in the early church who vehemently opposed the Apocrypha are excommunicated. I wonder if they know that? It includes Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and the translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome!!

Even the early Syrian church did not accept the Apocrypha. In the second century A.D. the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha.

• IF (as you try to claim) the Apocryha WAS accepted then, why were these people not excommunicated LONG before the Reformation?

None of the great Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) contain all of the apocryphal books. In fact, only four (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach [Ecclesiasticus]) are found in all of them, and the oldest manuscripts (B or Vaticanus) totally exclude the books of Maccabees. Yet Roman Catholics appeal to this manuscript for proof of their deuterocanonical books that include the Apocrypha! What is more, no Greek manuscript has the same list of apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (a.d. 1545–63)!!!

At the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (a.d. 1546) the infallible proclamation was made accepting the Apocrypha as part of the inspired Word of God. Unfortunately, the proclamation came a millennium and a half after the books were written and in an obvious polemic against Protestantism. Furthermore, the official infallible addition of books that support prayers for the dead is highly suspect, coming as it did only a few years after Luther protested against this very doctrine. It has all the appearance of an attempt to provide ecclesiastical support for Roman Catholic doctrines that lack biblical support.

Roman Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his Complutensian Polyglot (a.d. 1514–17) on the very eve of the Reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (a.d. 1532) many years after the Reformation began which did not contain the Apocrypha!!! (Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences. Page 164.)

:o

 

[thessalonian]

Prayers for the dead can be found in Tradition long before trent in both Catholic and Orthodox circles and I am sure your two fine cardinals prayed for the dead as well. (By the way who cares if two cardinals did not include them? By what authroity do the do this"). In fact prayers for the dead can be found in the writings BEFORE the late fourth century where we claim that the Apocrypha and the existence of a place for cleansing of sin (though not called purgatory) were officially declared canonical. I can present quotes later if you think you need them. So if the apocrypha are neccessary to justify prayers for the dead and purgatory then why did they believe in them before the Apocrypha were officially declard canonical.

Gieler's work has some errors and red herrings which I will try to get to later.

I stand by my point. Without the Apocrypha Catholicism would not change. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand the nature of Catholicism.

 

[thessalonian]

Gary says that the Catholic Church would change if the Bible did not contain the Dueterocanonicals. He says they are used to justify praying for the dead. Then claims Cyril of Jerusalem rejected them. (I will have to check in to that). But did cyril reject praying for the dead?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Mystog., V, 9, P.G., XXXIII, col. 1116) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar."

Nope. So Cyril did not need the Dueterocanonicals for this belief if what Gary says is true (that Cyril rejected them). Evidence of purgatory can be found in Origen, Jerome as well.

This from Origen;

Origen

If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448 [A.D. 185-232]).

Seems Gary is just making my arguement. :D:

Blessings

 

[Gary]

Proving the argument

What you have failed to answer is:

(1) By definition, therefore, the individuals in the early church who vehemently opposed the Apocrypha are excommunicated. I wonder if they know that? It includes Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and the translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome!!

However, you have added weight to the argument (spelt without the "e"):

(2) You have shown that Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen, who rejected parts of the Apocrypha, endorsed Roman Catholic dogma which is not Biblical. There is nothing new in this! The Roman Catholic "church" has several non-Biblical traditions.

 

[Gary]

Did Origen encourage prayers to the dead?

Did Origen encourage prayers to the dead?

There are hundreds of passages on prayer in the Bible, covering thousands of years of history. In all of that context, we're never encouraged to pray to the dead. To the contrary, scripture condemns any attempt to contact the physically deceased (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Isaiah 8:19, Isaiah 19:3). Roman Catholic apologists often cite examples of people praying to the dead in later centuries, but the Biblical evidence is against the practice, and some of the earlier church fathers contradicted the doctrine. For example, Origen:

"For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer. For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But, conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God's prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him....And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God, seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer beetween God and them....Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus" - Origen (Against Celsus, 5:4-5, 5:11, 8:37)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I echo Origen's words: "thessalonian forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus"

 

[thessalonian]

Re: Proving the argument

What you have failed to answer is:

(1) By definition, therefore, the individuals in the early church who vehemently opposed the Apocrypha are excommunicated. I wonder if they know that? It includes Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and the translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome!!

Well first of all this simply shows your ignorance of Catholicism which does in fact allow some dissenting opinion for things not declared dogma. But there are other errors in your thinking. That someone (i.e. Athanasius, Cyril, Origen) do not include all of the Apocrypha in a list of the canon does not mean that they rejected the others. Do you have statements of outright rejection? It may show ignorance of the books or the Churches position. Both good reasons in Catholic theology for why they would not be deemed heretics. Your arguements on all but Jerome are arguements from silence as far as I know. Jerome on the other hand included them in the Vulgate which shows that he did in fact come around. Who knows what would have happened had he persisted in denying them.

However, you have added weight to the argument (spelt without the "e"):

Is this some dig at a typo or spelling mistake of mine as you have done in the past Gary. If it is it is incredibly funny as you will have to go to dictionary.com and inform them that they do not know the meaning of the word spelt. :

(2) You have shown that Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen, who rejected parts of the Apocrypha, endorsed Roman Catholic dogma which is not Biblical. There is nothing new in this! The Roman Catholic "church" has several non-Biblical traditions.

Well first of all Gary if not in the Bible is what unbiblical means then I guess you have a problem in Protestantism as well as Altar Calls without baptisms are nowhere in the Bible for instance. I don't need Macabees to show the existence of Puragotry. The verse Origen sited is plenty sufficient. Not to you of course as you na-na boo boo, your interpretation is wrong. I disagree. Prayers for the dead are implied by Pauls words in Phillipians I think it is about Oneisphorus. Once again show me a statement where Cyril, etc. explicitly rejected a part of the Dueteros.

There are many affirmations of the Dueteros as scripture from Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril here so your contention that they rejected them is far from a slam dunk.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Blessings

Blessings

 

[Gary]

Teaching the know-it-all

Argument without the "e"

Lighten up....

 

[Gary]

Shooting himself in the foot again....

... That someone (i.e. Athanasius, Cyril, Origen) do not include all of the Apocrypha in a list of the canon does not mean that they rejected the others. Do you have statements of outright rejection?

Once again show me a statement where Cyril, etc. explicitly rejected a part of the Dueteros.

Sure, bless you too!!!

Here is one such statement:

Cyril of Jerusalem

"For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:34-35)

:D :D :D

Blessings again.

 

[Gary]

Shooting himself in the foot again....

... That someone (i.e. Athanasius, Cyril, Origen) do not include all of the Apocrypha in a list of the canon does not mean that they rejected the others. Do you have statements of outright rejection?

Once again show me a statement where Cyril, etc. explicitly rejected a part of the Dueteros.

Blessings

Sure, bless you too!!!

Here is another such statement:

Athanasius

According to the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church:

"It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New." (120)

Athanasius disagreed. He referred to a canon much closer to that of evangelicalism as the canon received by the tradition of the church:

"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

:D :D :D

Blessings again.

 

[thessalonian]

Funny, I just found a websited that quotes Origen as praying to saints himself.


"Come, O angel, receive one in word converted from his former error, from the doctrine of devils, from iniquity, speaking highly; and receiving him as a good physician, cherish and instruct him; he is a little one, he is born today, an old man growing young again; and receive, retribution to him, the baptism of the second regeneration; and call to thee other companions of thy ministry, that all ye equally may instruct in the faith, who were sometimes deceived.

"O blessed Job, living for ever with God, abiding in the presence of the king and lord; pray for us miserable ones, that also the terrible majesty of God may protect us in all tribulations and deliver us from all the oppressions of the wicked one, and number us with the just, and write us with them who are saved, and make us rest with them in his kingdom, where we may perpetually magnify him with the saints."

"I think, says he, that all the fathers who died before us, fight with us and help us by their prayers;"


Celsus was presenting those angels in heaven as deities.
I think Origen's words understood in that light make some sense.

 

[Gary]

Proving the argument (without the "e")

... Do you have statements of outright rejection? It may show ignorance of the books or the Churches position. Both good reasons in Catholic theology for why they would not be deemed heretics. Your arguements on all but Jerome are arguements from silence as far as I know. Jerome on the other hand included them in the Vulgate which shows that he did in fact come around.

Blessings

Blessing to you too!

You are wrong yet again. Here is what Jerome had to say in the Vulgate:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

"we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, The Books of Samuel and Kings).

Blessings again..... perfect slam dunk!

:D

 

[thessalonian]

I asked for a direct statement by Cyril rejecting the 7 books. I.e. Sirach is not scripture, thus sayeth Cyril.
What Cyril calls Apocrypha does not include the Dueteros as he is speaking in a NT context. Cyril rejects NT time apocrypha. His listing of the OT books does not include the Dueteros but neither does it reject them. It may be that he had a Hebrew canon only and therefore did not know of them. I see his statement as a silence on the OT Canon. That he sites them elsewhere is evidence of this.

There is evidence below that he held the Dueteros in high esteem.

The Divine Nature then it is impossible to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine, it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to Solomon, who says, 'For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen'[Wisdom 13:5]. He said not that from the creatures the Maker is seen, but added proportionably. For God appears the greater to every man in proportion as he has grasped a larger survey of the creatures: and when his heart is uplifted by that larger survey, he gains withal a greater conception of God. Wouldest thou learn that to comprehend the nature of God is impossible? The Three Children in the furnace of fire, as they hymn the praises of God, say 'Blessed art thou that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the Cherubim'[Daniel 3:55-Three Youths]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:2,3 (A.D. 350).

"[L]earn from this instance the mightiness of God: for 'He hath numbered the drops of rain'[Job 26:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. 'Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon'[Sirach 3:20,21]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 6:4 (A.D. 350).

"Hear the Prophet saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men'[Baruch 3:36-38]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15 (A.D. 350).

"He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, 'God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling'[Daniel 13:45-Susanna]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16:31 (A.D. 350).

"For when they speak against the ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head[Daniel 14-Bel & the Dragon], much rather was the Lord of both Prophets and Angels, able by His own power to make His ascent into the Heavens on a cloud from the Mount of Olives." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 14:25 (A.D. 350).

 

[Gary]

Teaching the Roman Catholic about history

His (Cyril) listing of the OT books does not include the Dueteros but neither does it reject them. It may be that he had a Hebrew canon only and therefore did not know of them. I see his statement as a silence on the OT Canon.

Read what he said.

Cyril of Jerusalem

"For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, (1) Genesis, (2) Exodus, (3) Leviticus, (4) Numbers, (5) Deuteronomy. And next, (6) Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of (7a) Judges, including (7b) Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the (8) first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the (9) third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the (10) first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the (11) first and second of Esdras are counted one. (12) Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, (13) Job, and the book of (14) Psalms, and (15) Proverbs, and (16) Ecclesiastes, and the (17) Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the (18) Twelve Prophets one book, of (19) Isaiah one, of (20a)Jeremiah one, including (20b) Baruch and (20c) Lamentations and the (20d) Epistle; then (21) Ezekiel, and the (22) Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:34-35)

:wink:

Bless you again as you read and learn!

 

[thessalonian]

Re: Teaching the know-it-all

Argument without the "e"

Lighten up....

I truly did get a good laugh out of it considering some of our past discussions. :-D

 

[Gary]

Losing (or loosing) the argu(e)ment...

I always get a good laugh..... that is why I have no need to put you on ignore.

Bless you again!

:bday:

 

[thessalonian]

All of your panderings about cyril and others are of little value. We don't care. There is authority in the church and their opinions on the matter are just that.

 

[thessalonian]

"[L]earn from this instance the mightiness of God: for 'He hath numbered the drops of rain'[Job 26:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. 'Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon'[Sirach 3:20,21]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 6:4 (A.D. 350).

"Hear the Prophet saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men'[Baruch 3:36-38]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15 (A.D. 350).

"He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, 'God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling'[Daniel 13:45-Susanna]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16:31 (A.D. 350).

"For when they speak against the ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head[Daniel 14-Bel & the Dragon], much rather was the Lord of both Prophets and Angels, able by His own power to make His ascent into the Heavens on a cloud from the Mount of Olives." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 14:25 (A.D. 350).



Evidently he didn't think these writings were totally worthless.[/b]

 

[Gary]

Exposing the arguments (without the "e") of thess

The Council of Trent affords these books full canonical status and pronounces an anathema (excommunication) on any who reject them. The Council stated: “If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts . . . and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid tradition let him be anathema.â€Â

Therefore, the individuals in the early church who vehemently opposed the Apocrypha are excommunicated. That includes Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and the translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome!!

Well first of all this simply shows your ignorance of Catholicism which does in fact allow some dissenting opinion for things not declared dogma.

Quite the opposite. It shows that the Apocrypha was opposed by these men. Therefore, they are excommunicated. Or, if what you claim is true, it shows that the Apocrypha was not accepted by several key individuals in the early church. Again, a discrepancy between what the Roman Catholic "church" now claims and the facts.

That someone (i.e. Athanasius, Cyril, Origen) do not include all of the Apocrypha in a list of the canon does not mean that they rejected the others. Do you have statements of outright rejection?

Yes I do. I have provided them. Slam dunk one.

Your arguements(sic) on all but Jerome are arguements(sic) from silence as far as I know.

Wrong. I have provided the evidence. Slam dunk two.

Jerome on the other hand included them in the Vulgate which shows that he did in fact come around. Who knows what would have happened had he persisted in denying them.

Wrong again. I have provided the evidence. Slam dunk three. Game over.

All of your panderings about cyril and others are of little value. We don't care. There is authority in the church and their opinions on the matter are just that.

So again you change your tune. How convenient. The triple slam dunk has prompted the retort of "we don't care"....

However, the Roman Catholic "church" does seem to care. Remember they said: “If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts . . . and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid tradition let him be anathema.â€Â

So the conclusion is obvious. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome did not "accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts" and should be excommunicated.

It also shows that the Roman Catholic "church" was not truthful when they declared: "It was by the apostolic Tradition that the (Roman Catholic) Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New."

:o :o

P.S. Bless you too!

 

[thessalonian]

Gary you only display your ignorance. You do not understand the difference between doctrine and dogma and where dissent may be allowed. You do not understand when dissent is arrogant and defiant vs. of conscience. Further, that some early Church writers may have disagreed with the canonicity of some scriptures in no way, shape or form, PROVES that the canon was not apostolic tradition. That is simply very poor logic. It does not matter whether Jerome or Cyril though the Dueterocanonicals were not scripture (though both call parts of them scripture). They are not infallible I would hope you agree. But you seem to like to present them as such on this matter though in all other matters they were very Catholic. And once again you do not deal with the main thrust of your very own thread. None of this proves that the Catholic Church would change in any way, doctrinally, if any book of scripture was removed. Quite the opposite in fact is apparent to any but the most anti-catholic. Protestantism must change if certain books are removed. George is living evidence of that.

 

[Gary]

Explaining the obvious to the ignorant Roman Catholic

None of this proves that the (Roman) Catholic Church would change in any way, doctrinally, if any book of scripture was removed.

LOL...... how ironic. By the way, I agree. You have so much non-Biblical dogma why rely on the Bible?



Why do you even need Paul?

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16

I can see why you don't need all Scripture when you are part of the Roman Catholic "church".

:D :D :D