MICHAEL TAYLOR February 10, 2015 at 4:50 pmFalse dichotomy. He gave us both. You might as well say God didn’t give us bread, but only bakers.
Apparently you hold to the view that there is no canon until someone tells you there is a canon. Does that mean there was no canon until Trent?
More proof that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Trent affirmed that the Catholic Church has had a canon of Scripture since 400 ad. That is when the Vulgate was put together:
Council of Trent Session IV
….It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
They are the following:
Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
I ask because that is the first time your church issued an allegedly infallible definition of the canon.
And she infallibly declared the Old Latin Vulgate, which was in use from the 4th century, to be sacred and canonical.
Of course. But the supposition that the RCC is the church Christ founded is just that–a supposition.
On the contrary, it is absolutely true. The only way you can deny it is by rejecting the truth.
Luther didn’t want a new church. None of the Reformers did. But Rome forced the issue in defining a false Gospel as the Gospel.
It is Luther who invented a new gospel.
You exaggerate your own unity. You don’t split into denominations, you polarize from within….
On the contrary, Catholics may have certain theological disagreements, but most of us will submit to the authority of the Pope when he settles the argument.
The fact that some who have been Catholic would rather be cast out of the Church then submit, only proves that the disciplinary procedure which Jesus Christ put in place is still working:
Matthew 18:17New International Version (NIV)
17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
But you only think you know what to believe because you believe Rome gets to tell you what to believe and you believe this because Rome tells you so.
So does Scripture.
Ephesians 3:10New International Version (NIV)
10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
And if Rome tells you Mary was conceived without sin you gulp that down hook, like and sinker as if this were the “default” belief of the church catholic.
It is. You see, the beliefs of the Catholic Church existed before the New Testament. It is based upon the beliefs which Jesus Christ passed down that the New Testament was written.
To imply that the reformers didn't want a new Church is a gross display of history. It's very apparent that someone isn't reading the writings of the reformers.
ReplyDeleteYes, Luther at first was protesting against corruptions and thus was demanding reform. But taking books out of the original Bible itself and renouncing many of the dogmas and doctrines that had been believed for nearly 1500 years, isn't what I call "unity". The corruptions that needed reform had nothing to do with dogmas and doctrines.
Nice post De Maria
Thanks Mark.
ReplyDelete