 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 03:59 am |
|
I did not know how to answer this question regarding if the East arrived at accepting the Deuterocanonicals the same way the west did, because some say they do not accept the Councils of Carthage as ecumenical. Yet, I am of the mind that since the church was still united until 1054 that whatever reasons or councils or early canon lists that ratified the canon were accepted and followed by East and West. Am I missing something? Here is the question. I apologize about the word apocryphal. Is it possible that even though they do not consider this one of the 7 ecumenical councils they still as members of the church considered it binding, I mean, I supose that we do not consider it an ecumenical council and we considered it binding. Here was the question:
I'm still interested if you can find when the Eastern church accepted the Aprocryphal books as I don't believe it was at a Council.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 04:53 am |
|
In looking for the answer to this, I found it a little toubling, and perhaps more ammunition for protestants, or some of the views Luther originally took of he Bible. I think I have often asked if we use the word Deuterocanonical to imply the books are a little less powerful, and I usually get the answet we consider them as much scripture as anything else, and I accept that, but I now think the matter is more complicated regarding if this was always the case. I am wondering how councils realy worked if part of the church accepts the canon for one reason and the other half accepted it for their own reasons. I think I am a bit confused, but here was what I learned from Orthodox sites though I do not know how reliable they ar or not. Is there any truth to the idea of the 6th (or 7th?) ecumenical council (actually I found some sources like Jimmy Akin saying it was the 7th ...wonder why the discrepancy, but they were both at Nicea) really being the one that formally selected the canon? I was always told it was Carthage and Hippo, but maybe those are pre-cursurs in the West of what was eventually to be accepted by all? So the answer I think I have is that the 7th counciil was the first ecumenical council that all the church accepted as final. Even if it was pretty much settled before that point that sort of puts the nail on it. But I am still curious as to if I am interpreting this right, and what to make of the claims that the books are slightly less significant.
---------
Even so, there was no official, authoritative "canon" listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).
--------
Basically the Orthodox Church regards the Old Testament canon as consisting of the canonical books (those held in high regard and constitute an authoritative source for doctrine and practice) and the deuterocanonical books (those considered inspiring and edifying but not authoritative for doctrine and practice). Although not used for the formulation of doctrine, the deuterocanonical books do play an important part in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church. Thus the Orthodox Church's position is that the deuterocanonical books are canonical but having secondary authority.
In his The Orthodox Faith (IV:17) John mentions five groups of books: (1) the Pentateuch, (2) the historical books, (3) the wisdom literature, (4) the Prophets, and (5) the deuterocanonical books. It is important to note that while John relegates the deuterocanonical books to a lower level, he does not altogether exclude them from the biblical canon. He writes,
"...these are indeed admirable and full of virtue, but they are not counted, nor were they placed in the Ark".
Although five groups are mentioned, John of Damascus privileges the first four over the fifth category that he regards as "admirable" and "full of virtue". This corresponds to the Orthodox distinction between canonical and deuterocanonical. Please keep in mind that the boundaries between canonical and non-canonical books is not as black-and-white for the Orthodox as it would be for Protestants.
The Old Testament canon was compiled by Saint Athanasius the Great in 328 AD and ratified by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680 AD (Canon 24 of St. Athanasius; Canon 85 of the Apostles). The fact that John of Damascus (c. 675 - c. 749) was a young boy at the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) gives us good reason to infer that he must have known of the Council's ratification of the Old Testament canon when he was an adult. If John of Damascus' listing diverges from the Sixth Ecumenical Council I'm not all that surprised. A decision of a council is not automatically binding upon the members of the Church, a council's decision must be received by the members of the Church (clergy and laity) on a general basis. In time it becomes part of Holy Tradition. The general reception of a council's actions by the Church as a whole reflects not only the catholicity of the Church but also the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth.
------------Last edited on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 05:41 am by brian
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 08:33 pm |
|
I can't devote hours and hours to this complex question, and the many (as usual!) particular "problems" that you bring up. But here is some basic information:
  
Timothy Ware, in his well-known book, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1980 edition, 208-209), writes:As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it [the Orthodox Church] uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. When this differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God's continuing revelation . . .
The Hebrew version of the Old testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the 'Deuter-Canonical' books. These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be 'genuine parts of Scripture'; most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament.
Likewise, Stanley S. Harakas, in The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers (Minneapolis: Light & Life Publishing Co., 1987, 27) writes:Roman Catholics accept seven of the Deuterocanonical Books. The Orthodox accept all 10.
St. Athanasius is one of the favorites of Protestants (probably second to St. Augustine in that regard). It's true that he did seem to lower the status of the deuterocanonical books somewhat, but not to a sub-biblical level, as noted by my good friend Gary Michuta, in his excellent book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007, 110-112; footnote numbering my own):Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture . . .:But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, 'The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .' [Ws 14:12] [2]
And later in the same work:For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3]
This reference to the "incommunicable name" comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .
Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God. He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine. [4] In another argument against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the Deuterocanonical Wisdom "holy Scripture" . . . [5] . . .
Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification, in the midst of several other scriptural quotations. [6] . . . Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. [7] Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical quotations [8] , and even introduced with the solemn formula "it is written." [9]
[1] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.12.
[2] Against the Heathen, 11.1. Emphasis added.
[3] Against the Heathen, 1, 17.3.
[4] On the Incarnate Word, 4.6; 5.2.
[5] Defense Against Arius, 1, 3.
[6] Life of Anthony, 28 and Apology Against the Arians, 66.
[7] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35 . . .
[8] Defense of Constantius, 17. Tobit is cited after Matthew and Isaiah.
[9] Defense Against Arius, Part 1, 11.
The great Protestant Bible scholar F.F. Bruce confirms Michuta's analysis:As Athanasius includes Baruch and the 'Letter of Jeremiah' in one book with Jeremiah and Lamentations [in his list of the Canon], so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in church [but doesn't list as a canonical book] . . .
In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for instruction of new Christians. He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formula -- 'as it is written', 'as the scripture says', etc.
(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80; my bracketed comments, based on the larger context of Bruce's analysis)
With St. Jerome, it was a different situation altogether. Michuta concedes:Jerome is the first of the Western Fathers to deny the inspired status of the Deuterocanon; the first to unabashedly designate them apocrypha instead . . . Jerome's new canon was an innovation -- and he knew it.
(Michuta, ibid., 142)
Protestant apologists often attempt to make Jerome the spokesman for a large silent majority of knowledgeable Christians in his day; this opinion is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Protestant scholars have long admitted that Jerome was essentially alone in his opposition to the Deuterocanon . . . It was also a decisive break from the practice of the ancient Christian Church.
(Ibid., 145)
But even with Jerome, there were several anomalies (or changes of mind or vacillations?), of such a nature that the would shock many a Protestant who rely on him as a "champion" in opposing the Deuterocanon. Gary Michuta enumerates several of these curious inconsistencies:He . . . flatly denies that Tobit is part of the canon, [1] although elsewhere he cites it without qualification! [2] . . . Jerome adopts the popular convention in his Letter to Oceanus by quoting Baruch as a voice made by "the trumpets of the prophets." [3] Sirach is both rejected and quoted as Scripture, [4] although it is formally quoted [5] and occasionally used without qualification. [6] Wisdom is also occasionally formally quoted. [7] Jerome even attributes the passages from Wisdom to the Holy Spirit. [8] Maccabees is used without distinction. [9] Jerome at times alludes to the Deuterocanonical sections of Daniel in his letters. [10] Deuterocanonical passages from Esther are likewise quoted. [11] . . . he lists Judith as one of the virtuous women of sacred Scripture . . . [12].
[1] Prologue to John.
[2] Commentary in Eccles. 8.
[3] Letter 77:4.
[4] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 2, 3:12; Letters 77:6: 108:22; 118:1; 148:2,16,18.
[5] Commentary on Jeremiah, Book 4, 21:14; Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 6, 18:6; and Letter 64:5.
[6] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 8, 24:4; Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 6, 18:6; Letter 57.1 To Pammachius; and Letter 125.19, To Rusticus.
[7] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 1, 1:24; Commentary on Zechariah, Book 3, 14:9; and Commentary on Malachi, 3:7 ff.
[8] Commentary on Galatians, Book 1, 3:2 . . . and Breviarium in Psalmos, Ps 9.
[9] Against Pelagians, Book 2:30; Letter 7, To Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius.
[10] Letter 3, 1 To Rufinus the Monk; Letter 22,9-10, To Eustochium; Letter 1, 9 to Innocent.
[11] Letter 48, To Pammachius, 14.
[12] Letter 65,1.
(Michuta, ibid., 149-150; again, my own footnote numbering)
Last edited on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 09:07 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 05:44 pm |
|
As a Jew, I am finding my way into the Catholic Church by having researched early Jewish sources extensively. Much to my astonishment, they pointed to, of all places!, the Roman Catholic Church! 
The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek (which includes the Deuterocanonical Books used by Catholics) was long regarded as inferior to the Hebrew Masoretic text, from which it differed on many points. Among them, explicit references to the Messiah which are not found in the same verses in the Masoretic text. In the Septuagint translation, the Book of Jeremiah is significantly shorter than Jeremiah in the Masoretic text. The differences mainly lie in parenthetical or explanatory remarks in the Masoretic text which are not present in the Septuagint.
The Masoretic text was standardized under Rabbi Akiba in the 2nd Century AD. At a time when Jews wanted to specifically exclude Jewish Christians from the synagogue. So, they had an axe to grind--a fact that Protestants haven't sufficiently acknowledged.
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint has been "rehabilitated" in the opinion of Protestant scholars. It turns out that in most cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew text supports the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint translation was made from an earlier Hebrew version of the OT, than was used in the Masoretic text. It seems that Rabbinic Jews deliberately obscured Messianic passages in the standardized Masoretic text, that were quite clear in the Septuagint. This, since the Septuagint was used so successfully by Jewish Christians in proving that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah from the OT. The Septuagint version of Jeremiah is significantly shorter than the Masoretic text, in the same way the Dead Sea Scrolls Jeremiah is.
Since the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonical books, I found that I had to admit that these were Scripture too.
Prof. James Charlesworth (A Methodist) at Princeton Theological Seminary and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls has been spearheading an effort to restore the Deuterocanonicals to the Protestant Bible as a result.
History and textual analysis of the OT is clearly on the side of the Catholic Bible.
Shalom!
Henry
PS. Imagine me... sounding like a RC apologist!
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 06:14 pm |
|
That's fascinating stuff. Keep doing my work for me, Henry! On a related note, it has always struck me that Protestants will favor what the non-Christian Jews in the first few centuries AD thought was the canon of OT Scripture, and ignore the fact that the early Church (i.e., Christians) clearly accepted the Septuagint as Scripture.
But they'll turn around and sort of have an "anti-Jewish" bias with regard to, e.g., the Judaizers, when in fact, I argued in a recent paper that they were actually Christians:
The "Judaizers": Jewish Christians ("Messianic Jews")?, Non-Christian Followers of Judaism? Gnostic Sectarians?
The new trend and cutting edge in Pauline studies with Dunn and N.T. Wright et al also shows that Jews believed in a salvation by grace just as Christians do, not in a salvation by works. Protestants have been wrongly caricaturing both Catholic and Jewish belief in that regard for centuries (because they strongly tend to read the NT through the fuzzy lens of Luther, not Paul). Modern consensus scholarship is extraordinarily confirming Catholic positions in many areas (Petrine primacy is another).
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 02:01 am |
|
Since we have so much respect for the Orthodox and they allow some amount of viewing the Deuterocanonicals as canon yet less powerful in some ways, and they come from the same background that we do, is there room for us as Catholics to take such a view of the Deuterocanonicals? To say that they are edifying and good for reading, but not as strong for maters of doctrine?
I am not saying I want to, I am just wondering if we are free to do so or if we are bound to see the books as every bit as inspired as the others. I guess that the Orthodox look at it this way makes me more compelled to consider that maybe this is the way they have been viewed all along especially since I have seen some other theogians of significance dispute the matter as well.Last edited on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 02:02 am by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 08:11 am |
|
Brian, the explanations I have read about the deuterocanonical books of the bible state that the difference lies in how they came to be recognized as inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. No doubt you have seen the same explanations. I do not see how there could be “degrees of inspiration.” To me it seems that a book of the bible is either inspired or it isn’t. How do the Orthodox say that some books of the scriptures can be “more inspired” or “less inspired”? And what would be the practical ramifications of considering something as “less inspired”? Would it not lead to a more Lutheran point of view, to the point that these books become “optional” and are eventually discarded?
David
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 12:16 pm |
|
If you want to object to the RC practice of indulgences and 2nd Maccabees provides the support from ancient Judaism for these practices, and you want to adhere to sola Scriptura, you have no option other than to reject 2nd Macc as Scripture. The only possible source for an authority which would do this is the discussions among anti-Christian rabbis in the late 1st and 2nd centuries.
The academy of Jamnia was led by Gamaliel II, Gamaliel the Elder (who taught Paul)'s grandson. He famously commissioned Samuel the Small to write a curse against heretics which included Christian Jews into the Amidah prayer of the synagogue which had to be recited by all worshippers there. This "outed" Christian Jews who could not pronounce this curse, so they were put out of the synagogue.
The other leader, Rabbi Akiba famously supported a false Messiah in 132AD Bar Kochba who led a 2nd revolt against the Romans, which they crushed.
So, do Protestants realize that the authority figures they look to to decide whether a book of Scripture is "from God" or not:
1. Rejected the Messiah Jesus when he was among them
2. Persecuted the Christian Jews right out of the synagogue and commissioned liturgy expressly against the gospel
3. Supported a false Messiah in the 2nd C AD
Not the kind of individuals I would look to as authorities on what is from God and what is not!
H.
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 01:33 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
Brian, the explanations I have read about the deuterocanonical books of the bible state that the difference lies in how they came to be recognized as inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. No doubt you have seen the same explanations. I do not see how there could be “degrees of inspiration.” To me it seems that a book of the bible is either inspired or it isn’t. How do the Orthodox say that some books of the scriptures can be “more inspired” or “less inspired”? And what would be the practical ramifications of considering something as “less inspired”? Would it not lead to a more Lutheran point of view, to the point that these books become “optional” and are eventually discarded?
David
I do think that the Lutherans point becomes more understandable and defendable (not that the books are not canon but that they are less inspired) when you consider that an ancient and apostolic Church that we continually say is not in heresy actually takes a somewhat Lutheran view. It is also confusing that they do not seem to take the exact same view as us because this matter was apparaently settled efore the Church split. This makes me think that the position exists becaue there was some dispute about it. It also makes sense that there would be a reason that the books are given such a special title almost just in case they are not of the same calibur of the other books. There are those such as Jerome, and Athanasius, and John of Damascus who though they used the books and quoted from them also said things sort of questioning if they were as authoritative.
I do not think we need them to prove that praying for the dead is acceptable, for this is a prodict of Jewish history and a clear tradition of the Church and the Maccabes pasage definitely supports it, and Paul even seems to practice it as well. The Orthodox pray for the dead as well so it does not seem to mater to them if Maccabes is useful for doctrine or not. I am not saying that we should doubt or call into question the things that we encounter in these books. I am not even sure what I am saying, but I wonder if there is a different way to view them especially if the church that follows the same tradition as we did for 1,000 years has not come to the exact same opinion or even canon. Makes me wonder if such a matter would eventually need to be brought up if there were ever a reunion.
As to how or why they think what they think, I can not answer, I am not myself even taking a side so much as wanting to see the merit of all the different viewpoints and how historically acceptable they are. This article as a whole may provide more. http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/old_testament.html
A lot of what I have read about the Deuterocanonials is that they are sometimes more stories and not literal interpretations (therfore certain dates or figures may not be exact) therfore while being important and canonical perhaps are needed to be interpreted in light of what genre they are like all books. For instance, Psalms is clearly as inspired as any other book, yet we would not always look there for doctrine becaue much of it is poery and need to be interpreted as thus. It does not mean the book has no doctrine in it or teaches any false doctrine, but it may be is less doctrinal than say reading the 10 commandments, Perhaps in this light one could see the Deuterocanonicals as being good for devotion and liturgy but not as powerful for settling doctrinal matters but maybe supporting doctrine.
I think this forum is excellent but sometimes I think that we do not give full respect to all sides of an issue or only present facts as we see them. For instance we (and other sources) often quote Luther to make him seem like he had a strong Mariology. There are definitely Luther quotes out there that support this, but to quote one or two of them to prove that this was his theology and ignore the fact that he got (maybe just because he was no longer Catholic but still) further and further away from it and even began to downplay it is to make our arguments assuming that the context will not be looked into. It is hard to say Luther had a strong Mariology in the end when you see how he discourages asking anyone to ask Mary or the saints for prayer as his life continues. He even advises against it.
Likewise with this Deuterocanonical issue, I asked it before and the answer was that these were always seen as scripture on equal level with the other books. Maybe this is true for a Catholic position. But I think that it would make me more informed and more able to discuss the matter with others if I also had been told that the Orthodox take a similar view and that Luther may have drawn some of his views from them. It helps me know how careful to refute others' arguments before using the Orthodox as support and making claims about how all of the apostolic Church viewed these books and how they have the same view and canon as we do even though they split up from us in seeking to prove that nothing changed and then being shown that there actually is some dispute. It is one thing when the dispute is a few quotes from Jerome and Athanasius and can be answered as peoples individual opinion that had to be countered by council, it is another thing when one of our sister churches as a whole has still not arrived at the same conclusion as we have.
My interest in this is not in taking sides, and as a Catholic I will always try to make it my responsibility to defend the Catholic position, but I also think for th sake of integrity that we should alsways be completely honest about what other positions are and not present only some interpretations when direct questions or issues are being discussed, or act as if the other positions did not exist. Granted, it is not up to us to make the other sides arguments for them, but it is wrong to leave out information that may seem to distort the clarity of the matter or presnety a distorted matter as if it was more crystal clear.
Brian
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 05:48 pm |
|
Hi Brian,
I do think that the Lutherans point becomes more understandable and defendable (not that the books are not canon but that they are less inspired) when you consider that an ancient and apostolic Church that we continually say is not in heresy actually takes a somewhat Lutheran view.
I agree with moderator David. There are no degrees of inspiration in any view. One either thinks the books are inspired or not. Lutherans do not believe the Deuterocanon is inspired; only possibly edifying for reading (Luther liked Ecclesiasticus quite a bit, etc.).
It is also confusing that they do not seem to take the exact same view as us because this matter was apparaently settled efore the Church split. This makes me think that the position exists becaue there was some dispute about it. It also makes sense that there would be a reason that the books are given such a special title almost just in case they are not of the same calibur of the other books. There are those such as Jerome, and Athanasius, and John of Damascus who though they used the books and quoted from them also said things sort of questioning if they were as authoritative.
There was a concept of Deuterocanon, but it was not sub-canonical, as the Protestants later thought. They brought in the late innovation, not us.
I do not think we need them to prove that praying for the dead is acceptable,
Not when Paul does it right in the NT (2 Tim 1:16-18), and also recommends doing penance for the dead (1 Cor 15:29: what I have described as "the most 'un-Protestant' verse in the Bible") . . .
for this is a prodict of Jewish history and a clear tradition of the Church and the Maccabes pasage definitely supports it, and Paul even seems to practice it as well.
Indeed.
The Orthodox pray for the dead as well so it does not seem to mater to them if Maccabes is useful for doctrine or not. I am not saying that we should doubt or call into question the things that we encounter in these books. I am not even sure what I am saying, but I wonder if there is a different way to view them especially if the church that follows the same tradition as we did for 1,000 years has not come to the exact same opinion or even canon. Makes me wonder if such a matter would eventually need to be brought up if there were ever a reunion.
The Council of Trent disallows a Catholic to believe that these books are sub-canonical or lack inspiration.
As to how or why they think what they think, I can not answer, I am not myself even taking a side so much as wanting to see the merit of all the different viewpoints and how historically acceptable they are.
What is "historically acceptable" and what is dogma (or true, for that matter) are not always the same thing.
This article as a whole may provide more.
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/old_testament.html
Thanks for that. It looks like a good overview. Note that he summarizes:
Even though the different Traditions of Orthodoxy may differ in which books they include in the Old Testament Canon, the fact remains that the Conscience of the Church generally accepts the Septuagint (LXX) or Alexandrian Canon....
A lot of what I have read about the Deuterocanonials is that they are sometimes more stories and not literal interpretations (therfore certain dates or figures may not be exact) therfore while being important and canonical perhaps are needed to be interpreted in light of what genre they are like all books. For instance, Psalms is clearly as inspired as any other book, yet we would not always look there for doctrine becaue much of it is poery and need to be interpreted as thus.
Exactly. Much of the material in the prophetic books are poetic in form, too.
It does not mean the book has no doctrine in it or teaches any false doctrine, but it may be is less doctrinal than say reading the 10 commandments, Perhaps in this light one could see the Deuterocanonicals as being good for devotion and liturgy but not as powerful for settling doctrinal matters but maybe supporting doctrine.
Depending on genre, yes.
I think this forum is excellent but sometimes I think that we do not give full respect to all sides of an issue or only present facts as we see them. For instance we (and other sources) often quote Luther to make him seem like he had a strong Mariology. There are definitely Luther quotes out there that support this, but to quote one or two of them to prove that this was his theology and ignore the fact that he got (maybe just because he was no longer Catholic but still) further and further away from it and even began to downplay it is to make our arguments assuming that the context will not be looked into. It is hard to say Luther had a strong Mariology in the end when you see how he discourages asking anyone to ask Mary or the saints for prayer as his life continues. He even advises against it.
It's true he rejected invocation of the saints, but even according to many Lutheran scholars, he accepted the Immaculate Conception his entire life. He always accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. We know he accepted the Assumption of Mary, at least for a time. I don't believe there is any compelling evidence that he ever rejected it, though he stopped observing the feast. He didn't totally reject praying the "Hail Mary". That's pretty "Catholic"! -- especially by today's Lutheran standards for such things. I believe I have done more research on this (Luther's Mariology) than anyone on the Internet. See my Luther page, section on Mary, if you're interested in any of that research.
Likewise with this Deuterocanonical issue, I asked it before and the answer was that these were always seen as scripture on equal level with the other books. Maybe this is true for a Catholic position. But I think that it would make me more informed and more able to discuss the matter with others if I also had been told that the Orthodox take a similar view
I think they do, per my first reply above. They even accept a larger canon than we do.
and that Luther may have drawn some of his views from them. It helps me know how careful to refute others' arguments before using the Orthodox as support and making claims about how all of the apostolic Church viewed these books and how they have the same view and canon as we do even though they split up from us in seeking to prove that nothing changed and then being shown that there actually is some dispute. It is one thing when the dispute is a few quotes from Jerome and Athanasius and can be answered as peoples individual opinion that had to be countered by council, it is another thing when one of our sister churches as a whole has still not arrived at the same conclusion as we have.
Their view is substantially the same as ours, and certainly closer to ours than to the Protestant view.
My interest in this is not in taking sides, and as a Catholic I will always try to make it my responsibility to defend the Catholic position, but I also think for the sake of integrity that we should alsways be completely honest about what other positions are and not present only some interpretations when direct questions or issues are being discussed, or act as if the other positions did not exist.
Of course. I always seek to do that in my apologetics. If I didn't, I would hear about it from my many critics, so it is in my interest personally, as well as a matter of principle and integrity, to present other views as accurately and fairly as possible.
Granted, it is not up to us to make the other sides arguments for them, but it is wrong to leave out information that may seem to distort the clarity of the matter or presnety a distorted matter as if it was more crystal clear.
Absolutely.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 854 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 03:32 am |
|
I amdit that it is important to consider the books inspid and canon, but there is some difference between what the Orthodox tink and what we think...
"The Orthodox Church accepted the Alexandrian Canon (Septuagint LXX) as divinely inspired, appropriate for reading in Church, and on a personal reading level. The shorter or Hebrew Canon remained as the Canon par excellence, and was most valuable for giving validity to basic Christian doctrines...."
I am wondering if we take a similar position or are allowed to or if we have to say that the protocanon is MORE valuable for doctrine than the other books. Not that they are not scripture or not imspried, but in some way not as clear in maters of doctrine.
Regarding Luther, if he argues aganst invocation of saints than he is certainly not going to be praying the hail Mary like we do 'pray for us sinners...' He is probably saying it as a reminder of her holiness or that she prays for us, but not asking her to pray for us personally.
This is what I mean about seeming like we sometimes misrepresent the facts or emphasize certain things. He may have had some Mariology...but I think we tend to distort that to upset people we debate when in fact Luther was very far from any sort of Catholic devotional Marian practice.
Thois quote from Luther makes it hard to believe he accepted the Immaculate Concpetion if she was born 'just like us' unless the website I read thisfrom is distorting or not presenting it correctly.
n 1532 he preached:
"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. [36]"
So, how can you say he believed in the Immaculate Conception his whole life? What am I missing here. Anyway, I am not sure why I care, I just want to know that we are honest when we use apologetics because anybody can make a case look good if they olny tell part of the story or try to uae what they want to support a conclusion that is convenient for them. I do not know Luther to welll, or really want to all that much, but he seemed ot say a lot of things at different points that seem to contradict.
Brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 12:28 pm |
|
brian wrote: I am wondering if we take a similar position or are allowed to or if we have to say that the protocanon is MORE valuable for doctrine than the other books. Not that they are not scripture or not imspried, but in some way not as clear in maters of doctrine.
Are the gospels more valuable than the Epistle of Jude? No. Are they more instructive, more useful for formulating theology? Certainly. Are the books of Genesis and Exodus more informative than the Book of Jonah? Certainly. Are they more inspired? No.
The books of the first canon form a core of beliefs which the deuterocanonicals supplement, but that does not make them less important or less inspired in any way. Among the books of the second canon, The Wisdom of Solomon is particularly beautiful. The books of Maccabees tell the story of Hannukah. It has always been interesting to me that Jews celebrate the festival of lights, but do not accept the books that relate its story.
The books of the first canon also form a core of scripture on which Jews and Christians agree. Even in the Church's early days, there were few disagreements over the canonicity of these books, while there were disagreements over the inspiration of the books of the second canon. Today, when we discuss doctrine with Protestants, it is less useful to rely on the deuterocanonicals for doctrinal discussions and apologetics since Protestants do not accept them. Instead, we rely on those books we have in common, making them "more useful for instruction". When teaching a Protestant about prayer for the dead, it is useless to use the Book of Maccabees as a reference since they don't accept that book. That doesn't make it any less inspired or less important, but it does make it less useful in that context. On the other hand, the books of the Torah are not very important when teaching a course on the Epistles of Paul.
When Mary appeared at Fatima and Lourdes, her remarks were very instructive. So what did the Church do? It listened, and then compared her teachings to those of scripture and the Church. Does that make Mary's appearances and comments any less useful? No.
When Congress passes a law and it is challenged, the Supreme Court compares it to the Constitution, prior law, and the Federalist Papers. Does that mean today's Congress is less significant than earlier Congresses? No.
If each book of scripture builds on all the other books (as we believe), then the later books must be considered in light of the earlier books. The Book of Jude must be read in the context of the Gospels, which in turn must be read in the context of the Pentateuch. Does that mean the Gospels are less important or less inspired than the Torah? No. They are all part of the same package -- the Divinely inspired Word of God.
Thois quote from Luther makes it hard to believe he accepted the Immaculate Concpetion if she was born 'just like us' unless the website I read thisfrom is distorting or not presenting it correctly. n 1532 he preached:
"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. [36]"
So, how can you say he believed in the Immaculate Conception his whole life? What am I missing here.
This is a perfect description of the Immaculate Conception. I don't understand your point. Mary was conceived normally of sinful parents in a sinful world, but the Holy Spirit protected her from inheriting original sin, and gave her the grace to remain sinless her entire life. This is exactly the Catholic teaching. So how can you say based on this quote that Luther rejected the Immaculate Conception? BTW, this statement is also fully compatible with the beliefs of the Orthodox as I understand them.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer, Hebrew Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 01:12 pm |
|
"The books of the Torah are not very important when studying the Epistles of Paul."
Probably, you didn't mean this comment the way it sounds. So many of Paul's arguments in the Epistles are based upon the Torah, that I can't see how anyone can understand Paul without a thorough grounding in Torah and in the Rabbinic exegetical practices used in 1st C AD.
To list just one of innumerable examples, in I Co. 9, Paul argues that Jewish apostles ministering to Greek churches should be financially supported by those churches. He supports this argument by appealing to Dt 25:4 which he directly quotes: "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."
The ox, serving its master with hard labor, and surrounded by its natural food, should not be prevented from eating this food while it labors. This law concerns the humane treatment of farm animals. What does it have to do with apostles and Greek churches?
By applying one of Rabbi Hillel's 7 interpretative principles, Paul makes the application:
Qal vahomer: "From the light to the heavy." What is true in a minor, or less important context is even more true in an important context.
So, if you wouldn't treat an animal who serves you with cruelty by not feeding it, how much more should you not teach a human being (apostle) who serves you with such cruelty?
The principle of qal vahomer is used extensively throughout the NT by both Jesus and Paul in applying the Torah to 1st C life. It is among the easiest of Hillel's principles to understand. And I Co. 9 is a very simple application of applying rabbinical reasoning to Torah.
One simply cannot understand Paul's arguments in the epistles at all without understanding Rabbinical exegesis of Torah. Christian theology has suffered throughout the ages by a lack of this understanding.
H.
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 03:20 pm |
|
hpj0828 wrote: "The books of the Torah are not very important when studying the Epistles of Paul."
Probably, you didn't mean this comment the way it sounds.
My point throughout was that all of scripture is required for the proper study of any of scripture, but singling out individual books and relating them to other books is not the most productive use of any such comparisons. Yes, knowledge of the Torah is necessary to understand Paul, but not more important than the gospels or Isaiah and the prophets or the histories and apocolyptic books. On the other hand, a thorough knowledge of the gospels is essential in understanding the message Paul is trying to convey. The messages Paul wished to convey must be studied in context with the message of Jesus, and all of the Old Testament is vital in understanding both. All of scripture is important, but at certain times and in certain circumstances, some parts of scripture are more useful than other parts.
That's why we read a gospel passage at every mass, but we do not always read from the Old Testament, or the Epistles, or Acts, or Revelation. As Christians at worship, the message of the gospel is more instructive to us. But you're right, the words I used are probably not the best to convey my meaning.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 06:17 pm |
|
Hi Brian,
I admit that it is important to consider the books inspid and canon, but there is some difference between what the Orthodox tink and what we think...
There always is! They always have to be different from us in some fashion (I say with affection).
"The Orthodox Church accepted the Alexandrian Canon (Septuagint LXX) as divinely inspired, appropriate for reading in Church, and on a personal reading level. The shorter or Hebrew Canon remained as the Canon par excellence, and was most valuable for giving validity to basic Christian doctrines...."
I am wondering if we take a similar position or are allowed to or if we have to say that the protocanon is MORE valuable for doctrine than the other books. Not that they are not scripture or not imspried, but in some way not as clear in maters of doctrine.
I think that is valid, and is confirmed by the very notion of "deuterocanon" (else it wouldn't be there in the first place).
Regarding Luther, if he argues aganst invocation of saints than he is certainly not going to be praying the hail Mary like we do 'pray for us sinners...' He is probably saying it as a reminder of her holiness or that she prays for us, but not asking her to pray for us personally.
Well, let me cite the man himself:Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation.(Sermon, March 11, 1523)
Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary.
(Personal Prayer Book, 1522)
This is what I mean about seeming like we sometimes misrepresent the facts or emphasize certain things.
Well, I didn't misrepresent that, did I? Perhaps you inadvertently have, though, in light of what Luther himself wrote about it.
He may have had some Mariology...but I think we tend to distort that to upset people we debate when in fact Luther was very far from any sort of Catholic devotional Marian practice.
I think the facts speak for themselves. I have documented this in many lengthy papers. See below.
Thois quote from Luther makes it hard to believe he accepted the Immaculate Concpetion if she was born 'just like us' unless the website I read thisfrom is distorting or not presenting it correctly.
n 1532 he preached:
"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. [36]"
There is a slight difference, as I noted in my papers, because we see that Luther dated her entire sanctification from the moment of Jesus' conception, not her own.
So, how can you say he believed in the Immaculate Conception his whole life? What am I missing here.
He did, in a slighly different form, but remarkably similar (esp. in light of the fact that it wasn't required dogma then).
Anyway, I am not sure why I care, I just want to know that we are honest when we use apologetics because anybody can make a case look good if they olny tell part of the story or try to uae what they want to support a conclusion that is convenient for them. I do not know Luther to welll, or really want to all that much, but he seemed ot say a lot of things at different points that seem to contradict.
My opponent in these debates about Luther's Mariology, the anti-Catholic James Swan, is the one telling only part of the story. I took great pains to cite mostly Lutheran theologians, and they agree that Luther believed this.
Here are my very lengthy, copiously-documented debates on the topic with him:
Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception): Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the "Reformational" Heritage of Classical Protestant Mariology? (+ Part II | Part III)
Second Reply Concerning Martin Luther's Mariology
James Swan vs. Lutheran Scholarship Affirming Luther's Lifelong Acceptance of the Immaculate Conception
Did Luther Stop Believing in Mary's Immaculate Conception? + Yet More Questioning of My Luther Research (see "Question #6") + My Reply | James' "Counter-Reply" | My Counter-Reply
For example, from the third paper above:
--------------------------------
As Luther put it in 1540: "In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was
purified so that nothing sinful remained. Thus Isaiah is correct in saying, 'There was no deceit in his mouth' [53]. Each seed was corrupt, except that of Mary."
[footnote 23; p. 381: "Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ," February 28, 1540. WA 39/2:107.8-13."]
Luther defended Mary's perpetual virginity and regarded her Immaculate Conception as "a pious and pleasing thought" that should not, however, be imposed on the faithful.
[footnote 43; p. 382: "'Haec pia cogitatio et placet.' Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of Isaiah, 1543/44. WA 40/3:680.31-32. Two scholars doubt whether Luther affirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary: Preuss (n. 11 above came to the conclusion that Luther rejected the doctrine after 1528; O'Meara states that "it is likely, but not certain" that Luther rejected the doctrine (118 [n. 11 above]). But Tappolet (32 [n. 1 above]) demonstrated with the use of texts that Luther did not change his mind. The literary evidence from Luther's works clearly supports the view that Luther affirmed the doctrine, but did not consider it necessary to impose it."]
In a similar vein Luther affirmed Mary's assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of benefit to others or accomplished in any special way.
[footnote 44; p. 382: "Sermon on the Festival of the Assumption, August 15, 1522. WA 10/3:269.12-13. Sermon on the Festival of the Visitation (preached on the same date). August 15, 1522. WA 52:681.27-31."]
Piepkorn believed that there is a significant convergence on the matter of Mary's Immaculate Conception between classical Lutheranism (as represented by such seventeenth-century theologians as Martin Chemnitz and John Gerhard) and Catholicism.
[footnote 79; Piepkorn, 83 (n. 11 above)." -- "Mary's Place within the people of God according to Non-Roman Catholics," Marian Studies 18 (1967): 46-83]
The book, The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, (edited by H. George Anderson et al, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992), from which the Gritsch citations above were drawn, is one of an ongoing series of works detailing ecumenical Catholic-Lutheran efforts. In this particular book, 12 Lutheran and 10 Catholic scholars participated. Their "Common Statement" (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed: (87) Luther himself professed the Immaculate Conception as a pleasing thought though not as an article of faith . . .
(101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form.
Tha | | |
