Catholic FAQ


Help support Catholic Answers!

Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Jun 12, '12, 11:42 am
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 16,060
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LionHeart777 View Post
Thanks Jon,

To be honest I do not know much about the Lutheran understanding of the Canon, I had heard a local radio program hosted by Lutherans who mentioned their understanding of the Deutero's is all, but was under the impression that the NT was identical in Content between Catholics & Lutherans, and that those Books are recognized as Scripture by both. I'll check out those links when I have some time here.

NIck
And it is and they are, Nick. No one is denying the canonicity of the Antilagomena. But we do recognize their history.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Jun 12, '12, 12:26 pm
JaKael02 JaKael02 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2010
Posts: 406
Religion: Catholic - Roman
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

"The canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape—which included the deuterocanonical books — by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years."http://catholiceducation.org/article...cs/ap0120.html

In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon.

The reason the Church had to dogmatically define is because of the intense dispute. And they defined it in accordance with the major belief from the Apostles onward.

"Overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I."http://catholiceducation.org/article...cs/ap0120.html
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Jun 12, '12, 1:09 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 23,070
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
I note that the concepts of the resurrection and eternal life are contained in the book of 2 Maccabees. The book which details the origin of the Jewish holy day of Hannukah. The books which detail the restoration of the Mosaic law to Israel in time for the birth of Christ, who taught the resurrection and eternal life.

If the concepts of the resurrection and of eternal life are not inspired of God, then from whom did the pre-Christian writer of 2 Maccabees get them?

Distilled to its essence, exclusion of the Deuterocanon is cherry-picking at the doctrinal level. Cafeteria Christianity, if you will.
__________________
"He was the first one in the world to break all of the commandments at once"
- Bishop Fulton Sheen regarding Moses throwing the stone tablets -
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Jun 12, '12, 8:54 pm
adrift's Avatar
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,654
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

One of the claims that BornAgainRN made was that the Early Fathers refered to them as 'Apocryphal. I thought that they were always refered to as Deutercanonical. Is his claim accurate? If so, was it all or just some and just who did call them apocryphal?
__________________


Hmmmmm. I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I'm
not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Jun 12, '12, 9:18 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 23,070
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
One of the claims that BornAgainRN made was that the Early Fathers refered to them as 'Apocryphal. I thought that they were always refered to as Deutercanonical. Is his claim accurate? If so, was it all or just some and just who did call them apocryphal?
They were not always called Deuterocanonical. That term arrived with Trent, which named them the Deuterocanon, or "second canon." For example, in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy means "second law."

Our protestant brother has seized upon the exception in attempting to prove his argument. He has cherry-picked a dissenting voice and is using that as his justification. Yet, Saint Jerome deferred to the authority of the Church, despite his personal opinion. What RN has proved, if one spends some time and cognitive effort on it, is the rule - that the books have been used somewhere, both east and west, since day 1 of the Christian Church. Not all books were used in all geographic areas, due to the primitive nature of the world, and the time and effort necessary to hand copy and distribute the scriptures. Nevertheless, all had been in constant use, and when challenged 1,500 years later, were examined and declared to be inspired.

I truly wonder why protestants who reject Luther cling to Luther's 66 book bible. Very curious.
__________________
"He was the first one in the world to break all of the commandments at once"
- Bishop Fulton Sheen regarding Moses throwing the stone tablets -
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Jun 12, '12, 10:02 pm
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,026
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
One of the claims that BornAgainRN made was that the Early Fathers refered to them as 'Apocryphal. I thought that they were always refered to as Deutercanonical. Is his claim accurate? If so, was it all or just some and just who did call them apocryphal?
Not quite.

What the Early Father's called the Apocrypha were any of a large number of religious books which were not used liturgically. The term was so general that it could refer to heretical texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, to books that taught us things that have come into our Christian tradition, such as the Protoevangelon of St. James, or to uplifting texts such as the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity.

Often though it excluded the blatently heretical.
__________________
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Jun 12, '12, 10:47 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 23,070
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
Not quite.

What the Early Father's called the Apocrypha were any of a large number of religious books which were not used liturgically. The term was so general that it could refer to heretical texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, to books that taught us things that have come into our Christian tradition, such as the Protoevangelon of St. James, or to uplifting texts such as the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity.

Often though it excluded the blatently heretical.
Sadly, about 495 years ago, the term "apocrypha" became a marginalizing term for "parts of the bible that really cramp our style" so to speak. If energy drinks had been available back then, we might have a protestant bible with only 59 books. Think of that!
__________________
"He was the first one in the world to break all of the commandments at once"
- Bishop Fulton Sheen regarding Moses throwing the stone tablets -
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Jun 13, '12, 9:53 pm
adrift's Avatar
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,654
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

What were the objections to Deuterocanonicals. I understand that St. Jerome questioned them but why?
__________________


Hmmmmm. I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I'm
not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Jun 13, '12, 10:53 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 23,070
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
What were the objections to Deuterocanonicals. I understand that St. Jerome questioned them but why?
A quickie from the Wiki (bolding mine):
Quote:
Jerome in the Vulgate's prologues[22] describes a canon which excludes the deuterocanonical books, possibly excepting Baruch. In his Prologues, Jerome mentions all of the deuterocanonical and apocryphal works by name as being apocryphal or "not in the canon" except for Prayer of Manasses and Baruch. He mentions Baruch by name in his Prologue to Jeremiah and notes that it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews, but does not explicitly call it apocryphal or "not in the canon".[23] The inferior status to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Jerome is seen by some as being due to a rigid conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church".[24] Eventually however, Jerome's Vulgate did include the deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha. Jerome referred to them as scriptural and quoted from them despite describing them as "not in the canon". In his prologue to Judith, without using the word canon, he mentioned that Judith was held to be scriptural by the First Council of Nicaea.[25] In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:

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 Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled —the judgment of the Church, rather than his own judgment or the judgment of Jews, though he wondered why one would sanction the version of a heretic and judaizer.[26]
This was a time in the early Church in which many things were being settled against heretics of the day. The books that had been read at masses were commonly accepted, but controversy raised the question of their canonicity, seemingly in large part due to who was putting them forward as canonical. Yet, Jerome realized that he was not the Church, but only a part of it, and deferred to the authority of the Church.

Look at it this way: If the Church had not definitively decided, the arguing would have gone on for centuries more. In the 16th century, it rose again, at the hands of yet another heretic. If Melanchthon had not moderated Martin Luther's desires, Luther might have gone to as few as 59 books. It would be even more chaotic than it is.

I note that each and every heretical sect and cult, without exception, uses Luther's 66 book bible as their basis. Not a single one has ever used the 73 book Catholic bible. Did Luther open Pandora's box?
__________________
"He was the first one in the world to break all of the commandments at once"
- Bishop Fulton Sheen regarding Moses throwing the stone tablets -
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Jun 13, '12, 11:14 pm
Zooey's Avatar
Zooey Zooey is offline
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: March 9, 2005
Posts: 14,478
Religion: Methodist
Default Re: SPLIT: Sola Scriptura debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_C View Post
Well yes but It did not just float down from the Heavens.
It didn't??
You mean the Bible didn't just fall down from Heaven& hit King James on the head????
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarflemike View Post
I have another question which I didn't see raised yet (perhaps I missed it). If the Catholic Church only added the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, why are they also in the Orthodox Canon, given that the two groups split 500 years earlier?

Or to put it another way, why don't the Orthodox use the Protestant canon?
__________________
Servant of Feline Forces--"the New Kids" (Mona, born 2010, & Tara, born 2011)

And now our own dear Bro, too, has crossed over the river, where he rests under the shade of the trees...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Jun 13, '12, 11:24 pm
Zooey's Avatar
Zooey Zooey is offline
Forum Master
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: March 9, 2005
Posts: 14,478
Religion: Methodist
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
There isn't. What there is, however, is a long history, from St. Jerome up until and even during the Council of Trent, of dispute regarding them. And this dispute and debate was permitted within and by the Church until Trent, as Cardinal Cajetan's position on them attests.

There is a difference, ISTM as a Lutheran, between rejecting these books (which Lutherans do not do), and treating them with an understanding and recognition of their disputed nature when considering doctrine.

Lutherans in America, I believe, have made a mistake in accepting English language protestant Bibles that exclude these important books. Doing so is outside the historic tradition of the western Church, including that of the Lutheran reformers.

Jon


Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
Sadly, about 495 years ago, the term "apocrypha" became a marginalizing term for "parts of the bible that really cramp our style" so to speak. If energy drinks had been available back then, we might have a protestant bible with only 59 books. Think of that!
__________________
Servant of Feline Forces--"the New Kids" (Mona, born 2010, & Tara, born 2011)

And now our own dear Bro, too, has crossed over the river, where he rests under the shade of the trees...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Jun 14, '12, 7:56 am
adrift's Avatar
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,654
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
A quickie from the Wiki (bolding mine): This was a time in the early Church in which many things were being settled against heretics of the day. The books that had been read at masses were commonly accepted, but controversy raised the question of their canonicity, seemingly in large part due to who was putting them forward as canonical. Yet, Jerome realized that he was not the Church, but only a part of it, and deferred to the authority of the Church.

Look at it this way: If the Church had not definitively decided, the arguing would have gone on for centuries more. In the 16th century, it rose again, at the hands of yet another heretic. If Melanchthon had not moderated Martin Luther's desires, Luther might have gone to as few as 59 books. It would be even more chaotic than it is.

I note that each and every heretical sect and cult, without exception, uses Luther's 66 book bible as their basis. Not a single one has ever used the 73 book Catholic bible. Did Luther open Pandora's box?
Thank you for your answer. What I am wondering is what were the controversies? Why was there a question about them?
__________________


Hmmmmm. I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I'm
not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Jun 14, '12, 9:49 am
LionHeart777's Avatar
LionHeart777 LionHeart777 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 1,263
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: discussion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
Thank you for your answer. What I am wondering is what were the controversies? Why was there a question about them?
The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Quote:
Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase.
Source: Reid, George. "Canon of the Old Testament." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 14 Jun. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm>.
__________________
Please come and visit my Detroit Catholic Examiner page.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8019Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
4810CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4281Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: flower lady
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3809SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3355Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3177Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3139Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2953For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady
2670Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.