No, I quoted an introduction from the Oxford Apocrypha that quoted a catechism. The quote was in direct quotes in the copy of the Apocrypha I have by well known scholars so I can only assume their quote is trustworthy and does come directly from a popular Roman Catholic catechism. I hope that makes sense.
It does make more sense now that you explained it. However, I searched the catechism website for that quote and can't find it. Maybe the Oxford Apocrypha is wrong in their quote? Or maybe I missed it!! I suppose it is best to quote the source directly when making a point instead of quoting a second hand source.
True, but from what I have read on the subject, there never seemed to be universal agreement. The councils at Hippo and Carthage were local synodical councils among the Latin church. This does not constitute universal agreement. I have not read that we have any knowledge of an official Church decree that made an official stance on the Apocryphal books prior to the Council of Trent. So, while it may be that the majority of people in the Church viewed these were inspired works, it is also very evident that key figures (such as Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate) did not view these books as Scripture. I think that is the heart of the debate. Of course, those who view them to be Scripture today will say that lots of people in the Church always viewed them as Scripture while those who disagree will point out the ones who did not. My point is simply that there does not seem to be any clear-cut decision by the early church. When the issue of Arianism arose, the Church made a clear and decisive decision on the issue. Likewise, when determining the 27 books of the NT, the Church made a clear decision that was embraced to be the official stance of the Church on the matter. To my knowledge, this never happened on this issue and so we are left with picking through various opinions of early church people. It seems that there was no official position and you had some that believed and taught they were Scripture and others who did not. Hence the debate.
The general consensus among the early church fathers, councils, churches etc. etc. had the canon generally settled by the year 400 AD. Just because Jerome and a few others didn't agree doesn't mean MOST did agree!
Well thats a bit of revisionist history, Tom. It is not true that for 1200 years they generally had x number of books until Luther came around. The fact is that some translations had them and others did not. Also, some of the first English translations that included them (such as John Wyclif's) had a notation with them that indicated the books were "to be set among apocrifa" and others did not. For the RCC, the distinction between church tradition and "Scripture" was not so easily distinguished. There wasnt a concerted effort to distinguish between the two because the authority of the Church and the authority of the Scriptures were viewed having the same infallible source. However, when the Protestants came along and began to distinguish between the authority of tradition and the authority of Scripture, the issue of which books were to be considered "Scripture" suddenly became prominent. That is why the RCC at the Council of Trent (which was originally intended to be a council to try to bring reconciliation between RCC and Protestants, that ended up being used in the opposite manner) decided to make an official declaration on the matter because the Protestants were starting to call into question a number of Church traditions.
I forgot to put the word "generally" in there!
So, I think there is a fundamental difference of ecclesiology that cannot be simply settled. Maybe from your RCC point of view, MY view is historical, nothing else! he Protestants open the Pandora's box of "there is no authority and anyone can be right." Obviously this is an issue and has caused a great deal of disagreement and various denominational groups. However, from the Protestant point of view, they were concerned with a Church leadership that was often plagued with corruption, simony and errant traditions that led people away from the teachings of Scripture and faith in God to the agenda of a corrupt politician under the guise of "the clergy." For instance, Luther was specifically opposed to practices of indulgences where people were extorted of money so they could look at icons and thereby have the church officials reduce their time in purgatory. Luther originally had no intention to break away from the RCC, but was forced out as he began to resist some of these abuses...and rather than the RCC making corrections they attacked Luther based on this perceived undermining of their authority (i.e. who are you to tell us something we are doing is wrong!?). Later, the RCC would bring about reformations as a result of the Protestant movement, but the damage had already been done.
So, the point is simply this. Both ecclesiological structures have their issues. True For the Protestants we have the Scripture as the authority but obviously, how those Scriptures are understood brings about a great deal of division. TRUE On the other hand, you have a clear authority from the RCC that fosters unity (if we dont take into account issues such as the Avignon Controversy or the Great Schism between East and West) , but there is the danger of that authoritarian approach leading the accepting masses down the wrong road (unless you feel they cannot err...which is a position I simply do not hold..nor do I think history substantiates).
Personally, one reason why I side with Protestantism is that I think we, as individuals, are held into account before God based on the authority of Scripture, and not any particular religious leader. For instance, the Jews had many, many different "denominations" Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, etc. and all kinds of debates over the Scriptures. Jesus' answer was not to say, "You must accept the position of Rabbi, or High Priest X because his position makes him the ultimate authority on the issue" Not true!! He said, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.(just look at 1 & 2 Kings to see how flawed this approach has been through history). No, Jesus pointed to the Scriptures as the authority and would often criticize the religious authorities for their failure to understand the Scriptures. It seems Jesus expected that the Scriptures could be understood and that each individual would be held to account based on their authority. Not true! scripture actually says, "As in all his letters, he writes about these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, as they also do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Moreover, I simply do not see the Scriptures teaching that at the coming of the Holy Spirit, that this format would change. There is simply no teaching in the NT about the establishment of a church hierarchy or that a human would sit in the "see of Christ" and become the voice of God on earth as equivalent to the Scriptures. Even if Peter is the one being referred to as "the rock" upon which the Church would be built, there is simply no indication that this role would be passed on. More than that, not even Peter seemed to have authority in the church in Jerusalem as the "see of Christ" in Acts 15. Thus this foundational role was not to be seen as the voice of Peter being the equivalent as the voice of Christ. Even Paul had to rebuke Peter about hypocrisy (see Galatians 1). Rather, we see passages in the NT that say things about anyone, even an angel preaching a Gospel other than the one Paul presented, they should be eternally condemned. The Holy Spirit has inspired the Scriptures and certainly the Holy Spirit works through men. However, we know that the Scriptures are true and we know that humans can resist the Holy Spirit and be in error. So then it's possible that Protestantism is in error? Just like Catholosism or Mormonism is in error? Are all of them wrong and we don't have the truth here on earth as God promised? Thus, I have a responsibility to the Scriptures before I have a responsibility to any man. While I respect those in positions of authority, in the RCC or other church backgrounds, my primary allegiance is to the Scriptures and the Word of God. So that makes you a church of one? Maybe you, wormwood, is the Church that Jesus established?
While it may be easy, convenient, and prevent dissension to point to a man or an office and say, "They are the absolute authority and what they say goes," I just dont see this model as historically free from fault or one that is modeled in Scripture. Who's authority did you accept as rock solid proof that the bible you read is in fact God breathed?
Nope...that would NOT help. He was one UGLY dude.
