The Papist Popery Of The Papacy

[Cure of Ars]

I am not going to respond to your last post at this time because I do not want to get distracted from comparing the development of the canon of Scripture to the development of the Papacy. So the question is, what is the earliest correct list of books that belong in the bible? Please let us know what you find.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[dairygirl4u2c]

In 367 a man named Athanasius first gave a list of canonical books identical with our 27 today and in the same order. I assume he had no additional books. Some say this was part of the Eastern Orthodox Church I assume because he's from the East.

The first decision for the Romans concerning the canon of the Scriptures was given at a synod under Pope Damasus in 382. In the same manner the Synod of Hippo in 392 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397 accepted the complete canon. And later Trent declared it finally infallibly.

One (of many) page that has reference to Athan.
[url="http://www.roca.org/OA/6/6g.htm"]http://www.roca.org/OA/6/6g.htm[/url]


I would like to point out that even if the Catholic Church had the first list, I do not suppose that proves anything. From my perspective, the canon is just the most orthodox and safest bet. From a fundamentalists perspective, the orthodox church worked by God to create an infallible canon with everything in it. I see some issues arising with this, so luckily I don't have to defend it.


So, I'd think there'd be more stronger evidence that the bishop of rome was then as we think of today. I don't mean it has to be the full tree, but the acorn should at least show more signs of being an acorn tree that put to rest ideas that it might not be. (and this little parable goes for the development as canon as far as I'm concerned)

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:38 PM']

Firmilian learned of the Christianity from the Catholic Church, letters to him where to correct his error... his views where wrong. The Catholic Church had a right and authority to correct him because they taught him. Firmilian was not keeping to the faith taught by the apostles. [/quote]
Convenient!

[Aloysius]

convienient that the Church of God fought against Firmilian.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]In 367 a man named Athanasius first gave a list of canonical books identical with our 27 today and in the same order. I assume he had no additional books. Some say this was part of the Eastern Orthodox Church I assume because he's from the East.[/quote]

Athanasius did get the NT correct but his canon had Baruch, which your canon does not have, and it omitted Esther, which your canon has. I asked for a list of the complete canon. So you need to go later in time to find the correct canon that you hold. Please keep looking because I am interested when your canon will finally shows on the seen.

But here I want to add something. Here is a quote from the pope that shows that he took a position of primacy in the Catholic Church even before you have the full development of your and my canon;

[quote][b]It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all…And above all,[/b] why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? [b]Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?[/b] If then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius], notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased,[b] they want to obtain our concurrence[/b], although we never condemned him [Athanasius]. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you. ([b]Pope St. Julius[/b], quoted from Jurgens, p.346)[/quote]

Sounds like more than a acorn to me.


[quote]The first decision for the Romans concerning the canon of the Scriptures was given at a synod under Pope Damasus in 382. In the same manner the Synod of Hippo in 392 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397 accepted the complete canon. And later Trent declared it finally infallibly.[/quote]

This would work if you where Catholic. But the canon at these councils given has the Deuterocanonicals (what protestants call the apocrypha) so this is not the same canon as you hold. So unless you become Catholic this is not the correct canon that you hold.

[quote]I would like to point out that even if the Catholic Church had the first list, I do not suppose that proves anything. From my perspective, the canon is just the most orthodox and safest bet. From a fundamentalists perspective, the orthodox church worked by God to create an infallible canon with everything in it. I see some issues arising with this, so luckily I don't have to defend it.[/quote]

My point is not that the Catholic Church had the first list. This is because at that time there was not two churches east and west. There was only one Church. But lets hold off on judgment for now and I am not going reply to your “safest bet” comment for now. I first just want to find the first canon list that corresponds to your canon. I'm kinda excited to find when it is going to show up.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[megamattman1]

If you're talking about NT canon, it appears that Hippo/Carthage had it. (unless Esdras was in the NT) If you're talking about the overall bible, it appears that Trent had the final canon. This is because Trent excludes Esdras which was in the earlier. I am not sure if Esdras is included in protestant versions or not.

[quote]This would work if you where Catholic. But the canon at these councils given has the Deuterocanonicals (what protestants call the apocrypha) so this is not the same canon as you hold. So unless you become Catholic this is not the correct canon that you hold. [/quote]

It is misleading to say the ealier councils had them. They were there for edification, but for nothing else until Trent. Pope Gregory the Great says about the Apocrypha that "…we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony" (Moral Teachings Drawn from Job; 19, 34). Cardinal Cajetan, a leading Roman Catholic scholar at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, states that the Apocryphal books are not canonical and cannot be used to confirm matters of faith.

It is not wrong to assume that the deuterocanonicals couldn't have been decided canonical after awhile, but it seems somewhat arbitary to do it after so long.

So what we have is Prots if they have Esdras have a bible from the early Roman synods. Maybe you'd insist that the Prots should follow trent if it followed the earlier synod, but even the Church now doesn't follow the synod.

Prots just feel that the decision back then was final. I admit it's sort of arbitary for a fundamentalist to say this. It's even arbitarary for a realist to say it (i consider myself a realist when looking at the facts of a situation). An influential Church with other churches decided that it was final. But why not draw the line with what's orthodox?

To a realist, it seems the Church is drifting away from Orthodoxy. You just have to have faith that it is not.

[quote]It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all…And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that [b]the custom [/b]has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius], notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him [Athanasius]. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you. (Pope St. Julius, quoted from Jurgens, p.346)[/quote]

It doesn't necessarily sound like an acorn to me. Because there is nothing to put to rest doubts that it might not be an acorn, I still stand by my parable.

Edited September 3, 2004 by megamattman1

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 2 2004, 05:27 PM'] convienient that the Church of God fought against Firmilian. [/quote]
No, convenient that you just throw out a Father who doesnt agree. For all you know, he could have been trying to reform the Church. That's evidence that even back then, there were Protestants, but the Pope was able to silence them, until one simply refused to recant, and managed to keep himself from being burnt at the stake like John Huss.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Firmillian's dissent wouldn't constitute a consensus. We don't base teachings off of individual Fathers.

[Oik]

[quote]No, convenient that you just throw out a Father who doesnt agree. For all you know, he could have been trying to reform the Church. That's evidence that even back then, there were Protestants, but the Pope was able to silence them, until one simply refused to recant, and managed to keep himself from being burnt at the stake like John Huss.[/quote]

No, actually, all this porves is that people think and discuss and that the Early Church Fathers that were wrong, were willing subject to God's authority rather than put thier belief in front of the Church, and go out and persist in heresy or other illict ideologies.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]If you're talking about NT canon, it appears that Hippo/Carthage had it. (unless Esdras was in the NT) If you're talking about the overall bible, it appears that Trent had the final canon. This is because Trent excludes Esdras which was in the earlier. I am not sure if Esdras is included in protestant versions or not. [/quote]


This is not the case. This can get a little complicated because different book were given different names and sometimes books were later separated. This is the case with Esdras. When the list of Hippo and Carthage lists Esdras it is not referring to the apocrypha work, which is not a part of the canon but to Ezra and Nehemiah. At the council of Hippo, Ezra and Nehemiah where considered one book, Esdras. Here is proof of this from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[quote]I. ESDRAS THE MAN

Esdras is a famous priest and scribe connected with Israel's restoration after the Exile. The chief sources of information touching his life are the [b]canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias.[/b] [u]A group of apocryphal writings is also much concerned with him, but they can hardly be relied upon, as they relate rather the legendary tales of a later age.[/u][/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm[/url]

[quote]II. THE BOOKS OF ESDRAS

Not a little confusion arises from the titles of these books. Esdras A of the Septuagint is III Esdras of St. Jerome, whereas the Greek Esdras B corresponds to I and II Esdras of the Vulgate, [b]which were originally united into one book[/b]. Protestant writers, after the Geneva Bible, call I and II Esdras of the Vulgate respectively [b]Ezra and Nehemiah[/b], and III and IV Esdras of the Vulgate respectively I and II Esdras. It would be desirable to have uniformity of titles. We shall follow here the terminology of St. Jerome. [/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm[/url]

[quote] It is misleading to say the ealier councils had them. They were there for edification, but for nothing else until Trent.[/quote]

It is not misleading because the councils of Hippo and Carthage had the same list that was given at Trent.

[quote]St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. [b]The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419),[/b] in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and [b]drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.[/b]  [Catholic Encyclopedia] [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]

[quote]Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. [b]Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.[/b] [Catholic encyclopedia] [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]

This also shows that your claim is not true;

[quote]The Council of Florence (1442)

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are[u] infallible [/u]states of doctrine. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" [b]contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical[/b]. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity. [Catholic Encylopidea] [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]


[quote]Pope Gregory the Great says about the Apocrypha that "…we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony" (Moral Teachings Drawn from Job; 19, 34).[/quote]

The term canon was used in different ways. I know that you probably rolling you eyes at me when I claim this so I will quote William Webster who is an anti-catholic apologist. I am quoting him so you do not think that I am making this up.
[quote]This is why I believe that the term canonical in the early Church had 2 meanings, one broad in the sense that it encompassed all the books which were permissible to be read in the Church and another narrow which included only those books which were authoritative for the establishment of doctrine.[/quote]
[url="http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html"]http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html[/url]

I contend that Pope Gregory was using the term “canonical” as meaning that Maccabees was not read during Church liturgy. This quote also does not apply to all the "apocrypha" it is only reffering to Maccabees. I can give a fuller quote if you want me to show you this. If you want to read more on this subject go here and look under the section on St. Gregory the Great, Pope:

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html"]Did some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?[/url]

[quote] Cardinal Cajetan, a leading Roman Catholic scholar at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, states that the Apocryphal books are not canonical and cannot be used to confirm matters of faith.[/quote]

I will quote the Catholic Encylopidea to answer this comment;

[quote]In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. [b]And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic.[/b] The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received. [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]

[quote]It is not wrong to assume that the deuterocanonicals couldn't have been decided canonical after awhile, but it seems somewhat arbitary to do it after so long.[/quote]

Your assuming that the deutrocanonicals were not considered scripture by the early church but this is simply not the case. Here is a quote from a protestant historian that shows that the early church held to the deuterocanonicals.

[quote]It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . [b]It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. [/b]The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have [b]treated them without question as Scripture.[/b] Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).  [/quote]

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#Introduction"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#Introduction[/url]

[quote]So what we have is Prots if they have Esdras have a bible from the early Roman synods. Maybe you'd insist that the Prots should follow trent if it followed the earlier synod, but even the Church now doesn't follow the synod.[/quote]

I have shown that Esdras is referring to Ezra and Nehemiah which both the council of Trent and the Protestant bible has.

[quote]It doesn't necessarily sound like an acorn to me. Because there is nothing to put to rest doubts that it might not be an acorn, I still stand by my parable.[/quote]

I never made the claim that I could prove the Papacy without a doubt. But my argument is that there is more historical support for thedevelopment of the papacy then there is for the development of the Protestant Bible. Both beliefs require faith but the only difference is that the Protestant canon lacks historical continuity.

Edited September 4, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 31 2004, 07:16 AM'] Correction... "Some" protestants... there are many protestants that believe them to be worthless.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
The ones who do so aren't Protestants, because as a whole they deny Sola Scriptura as it was believed by the Reformers.

[Aloysius]

so the Reformers are the authoritative litmust test for who's a true Christian?

they are protestants because they protest against Catholic Teaching, like all protestants

if the Catholic Church didn't exist, you'd all crumble cause you'd no longer have self-identity, your very self-identity is that you protest against the Catholic Church

that's the only thing that holds all protestants together. your branch of protestantism is also held together by Sola Scriptura as it was believed by the deformers.

[William Putnam]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Aug 30 2004, 05:57 PM']William Putnam,

Only Clergy are supposed to put a Cross after their signatures. I do not see you as a "Clergy" group, so I assume you are not. I believe a Bishop puts the Cross before his signature and a Priest puts it after his name.[/quote]
Huh?

Is this is forum rule? I have been using the "+†+" immediately after my name for years now, and that is the first time I heard it was used for clergy only. In fact, I "stole it" from a non-Catholic poster years ago!

Notice it three crosses, not one, the two thieves with Christ's cross between them!
Therefore, I don't think any clergy does that.

And no, I am not clergy......happoly married with seven adult children, and presently with 18 grandchildren, with two more "on the building ways" to use a Naval expression.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat![/i]

[William Putnam]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Aug 30 2004, 06:19 PM']I would also check out this;

[b]Peter is "The Rock"[/b]

--[url="http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Documents/RockPeterOrConfession.doc"]Is Peter the Rock, or is the Rock only his Confession of Faith?[/url]
--[url="http://catholicoutlook.com/rock2.html"]Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock[/url]



--[url="http://www.netacc.net/%7Emafg/peter01.htm"]Exegesis of Mat 16:18-19[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"]Peter the Rock[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ170.HTM"]The Metaphor of Peter as "Rock"[/url]
--[url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html"]Nuts & Bolts: The "Pebbles" argument goes down[/url][/quote]
Cure'

An excellent book on this subject is:

[b]JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS[/b]
By Scott Butler et al,
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6

Which in my opinion, is the definitive book that refutes the non-Catholic argument once and for all! It is inexpensive, about $20.00 in paperback and available at AMAZON.COM

I appreciate the throughness of your replies, Cure' of Ars! I also love your handle, the name of a great saint who was the very embodiment of humility.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



[i]Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church.[/i] (1 Tim 3:15)

[Paladin D]

[b]William Putnam[/b] don't worry, it isn't against forum rules.