Deuterocanonical books

[Vic C.]

How have these books influenced your Doctrines?

Honestly, I should be more familar with them than I am. I only know a bit about Macabees, since they are part of my End Times history.

 

[stray bullet]

How have these books influenced your Doctrines?

Honestly, I should be more familar with them than I am. I only know a bit about Macabees, since they are part of my End Times history.

One of the things that confuses protestants about Catholicism is looking at things from their own perspective. Protestants base their beliefs on the bible- Catholic beliefs are confirmed in the bible- the same way that Matthew varifies John, but one doesn't influence the other.

Catholics believe in what was taught by the apostles and preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit- which we call Holy Tradition. When the Gospels were written down and Paul wrote his epistles, the scripture was in agreement with all that was taught before.

In times of dispute within the Church over these teachings, it became necessary to establish doctrine- a clear defintion of what one is supposed to do- just like the first apostles did in the epistles. Both gave the Church direction when needed.

To answer your question, the Deuterocanon no more influences our doctrine than it influenced the Gospels. What comes from God doesn't influence what later comes from God- it simply is of God and is confirmed.

Protestant theology/doctrine is not considered revealed by God or truth preserved perfectly from the beginning... rather it is (admittedly fallible teachings) derived from interpretation of the infallible truths of the bible.

 

[Vic C.]

We' re looking to learn and not be subjected to opinions about whose doctrine is in err.

Can anyone else contribute something of value that we can learn from and that will help us better understand these books?

Thanks.

 

[thessalonian]

Stray, let's try keep paragraphs like that last one out of this forum. It is for explaining Catholic theology. We should not try to explain theirs except in a minimal fashion (as you did in your first paragraph) and I would ask that they do not try to explain ours here. There are other places on the board for that. I see this forum as simply for explanation of the Catholic faith of those who sincerely inquire.

Vic, I agree with his post and think the information he gave was good. Catholic theology is not derived from the Bible per se. It is confirmed by the Bible and the Bible certainly is used to keep us in line with truth as it is good for teaching, correction, and reproof. But Church teaching preceeded and was apart from the New Testament. The New Testament was not available most of the time while the Apostles walked the earth but not everyone had a pocket apostle to carry around either. The teachings were carried on through oral teaching and still are today. They were and are in the hearts and minds of the believers. St. Irenaus I believe it was said "if we had not the scriptures we would have the Church". Quite biblical since Timothy tells us "The Church is the pillar and support of the truth" 1 tim 3:15. The teachings of the Church are carried on completely in Tradition. This Tradition is guided by the scriptures which are a part of Tradition.

"Hold fast to the TRADITIONSSSSSS you have recieved, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or in writing from us. 2 Thes 2:15."

As an illustartion of what I am trying to say, the English language does not fully and perfectly encapsulate all that the Hebrew and Greek say in scripture. In truth part of God's revelation is lost in a translation. This is inevitable. Does the Catholic faith change because of this? No because the teachings are carried in the Sacred Oral Traditions of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. If the book of Macabees for instance were not in the scriptures we would still pray for the dead. It would be more difficult to see in scripture, though there is evidence in one of Pauls writings where he speaks of Onesimus's family and it is implied that Onesimus is dead. If Paul's writings were not in the Bible Catholic teaching would be the same. I would suspect that Protestant teaching would be quite different. Just a speculation. :D:.

Blessings

 

[Vic C.]

If Paul's writings were not in the Bible Catholic teaching would be the same. I would suspect that Protestant teaching would be quite different. Just a speculation.

Shhhhhh... don't let George hear you say that. :wink:

It would be more difficult to see in scripture, though there is evidence in one of Pauls writings where he speaks of Onesimus's family and it is implied that Onesimus is dead.

I'll check that out in my Literal translations. I'm not getting that from reading the two passages about Onesimus in the KJB.

Peace,
Vic

 

[thessalonian]

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph'orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains,
[17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me --
[18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day -- and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Onesimus was likely dead.

 

[Vic C.]

2 Tim 1:16 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:

Onesiphorus

That's not the way you spelled it the first time. :smt064 I was searching for Onesimus. :

 

[thessalonian]

Sorry. :

Note how Paul speaks of him in past tense.

 

[stray bullet]

We' re looking to learn and not be subjected to opinions about whose doctrine is in err.

Erm, vic, thes... I think you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest they were in error. I was trying to link the source of our doctrine being considered infallible with what I was saying about where it comes from.

I was a protestant and we considered all doctrine and theology derived from the bible and fallible because no man can interpret infallibly... whereas Catholics believe their doctrine is infallible because it comes by revelation from God. In other words, the Church doesn't interpret scripture, much less interpret it infallibly... because she doesn't need to.

All I meant, sorry

 

[Vic C.]

NP Stray, it's all good. :D

 

[stray bullet]

I, urm, debate on other Christian boards, so I'm often in a strong defensive mod when posting... sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive

 

[Gary]

Deuterocanonical books and false Roman Catholic doctrines

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).

 

[stray bullet]

Re: Deuterocanonical books and false 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.

 

[Vic C.]

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

Gary reminded of the influence Hellenism had over the Jews of this time period (and their writing). Just how much of Hellenism crept into Judaism (and much of Christianity of the time) is something I find of great interest. I may research that in depth one of these days. I did find this in the meantime:

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org ... uls97b.htm

 

[CatholicXian]

FYI, vic, the "National Catholic Reporter" has many nicknames among faithful Catholics and is not taken seriously (ex. "National Catholic Disaster", etc.) . I didn't read the link though, so it may be okay. But, in general, I roll my eyes at anything they put out regarding the faith-- they're not a reliable source. Too much dissent. Many of their writers are in open dissent and disobedience as regards the Church and her teachings.

 

[Vic C.]

When you get the chance, check out the link. The info seemed straight forward.

Vic

 

[Gary]

Deuterocanonical books and false 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]

Gary,

This is not a forum for Protestant Catholic debate or accusations ("don't twist the facts"). This forum is for Catholic answers to Catholicism. These circlar arguements have gone on many times on this forum and are not needed here again. Please take this type of posting elsewhere. I was tempted to delete your post but will leave it. Catholics may respond to it but don't try a rebuttal or I will delete them both.

 

[thessalonian]

Gary,

By the way, I am not trying to stifle such a debate. Be creative. Cut and past your post with vic's words over to the Apologetics forum.

blessings