Calvin,
"No need to apologize for "cluttering" my thread. "
gratcia!
"It seems that there was no completely settled OT canon at the time of Jerome, and that there was disagreement in the early church, by someone as important as Jerome, seems to be adequate support for the Protestant position with regard to the Apocrypha. "
This seems to be very problematic for another position of Protestantism. Sola Scriptura. If they didn't even know what the canon was how could they be passing out Bibles to everyone. There was disagrement about the canon. So how did it get settled is the question. You put it all in jerome's hands. The fact of the matter is that the scriptures themselves tell us the Church is the "pillar and support of the truth" thus, I would much rather go along with the Church. Further the body of evidence that the Deutero's were accepted by the Church is much less ambiguous. We know of Damusus's acceptance of the canon. We know of Hippo and Carthage's ratification of his words. We even know that Jerome himself looked to the papacy for direction for he says in his letter to Pope Damasus which I will speak more of below.
So tell me. If the Canon was not settled then, by your point, Luther should have been able to remove Hebrews, James, and Revelations which he questioned the canonicty of. Second Peter, the Second and Third John, Jude have been questioned by highly regarded people with regard to their canonicity in the early days of the Church. I have even heard Protestants openly reject the last chapter of Mark's Gospel. So do we rip them out of our Bibles also? It is the Church that is the "pillar and support of the truth " 1 tim 3:15. Not St. Jerome. I would much rather go with the consensus opinoins of councils rather than even Jerome, a man who's opinion I highly regard but none the less a fallible human. Further, that Jesus and the Apostles clearly were using the Septuigiant which included the Duetero's is a much better indication of their canonicity. Further, there are events spoken of by the Apostles that are only found in the Duetero's. So it is quite apparent that the Aposltes and Jesus read them and highly regarded them. Further, I give much more credibility to Pope Damasus including of them in the canon that was ratified by hippo and carthage than Jerome as he was the successor of Peter upon whom the Church is built. Jerome himself recognized the authority of the Pope when he said:
," I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ." Jerome, Letter 15. To Pope Damasus (376 or 377 CE)
If you want to see it in context you can go to
www.newadvent.org. Click on Church Fathers and it has Jerome's alphabetically listed. One thing you cannot guarantee is that Jerome did not accept the Deutero's in the end. And there is evidence that he actually did accept them as canonical.
Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207
"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MA
And with his clear respect for the Papacy I think it likely he did.
"There was also not general acceptance of these books by Jews at the time of Jesus."
Fact. Jesus used the Septuigiant. They included the canon.
" And that really settles the matter. Jesus did not appear to address this debate. And I don't think anyone has ever pointed to a situation wherein Jesus, who quoted Scriputre often, made a reference to these books as authoritative Scripture. Jesus could not have been unaware of the debate as to the canon."
First of all Jesus settled very little that divided the various groups of Jews. "New wine cannot be poured in to old wineskins."
No books were bound together in a bible at this time. There are other books that Jesus did not quote or authenticate the canonicity of. 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, nor Nahum are quoted by Jesus. He did use concepts that can only be found in the Apocrypha. Jesus did not come to settle all of our debates. Finally your arguement is baseless. The Jews didn't settle their canon until around the year 100. Also if Jesus purpose was to settle all arguements that would come up how come he left the issue of cirucumcision of the gentiles to be settled by the Council of Jerusalem a dozen or so years after his death. Could have saved quite a few people some pain it seems to me.
"This, combined with respect for the Levites as keepers of the OT Scriptures, seems an adequate reason to use the Hebrew Bible for the OT Scripture even without the motivation of discarding Catholic practices with which Protestants disagree."
Desire not to have the stress of a dozen kids motivates many to maim their sexual reproduction. So if it is motivation you want you can find it for about anything these days. Fact. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth. How can your invisible Church that can't agree on birth control or baptism fullfill this function. It can't. Own up to it. We know that Jesus viewed the leaders of the Jews as wolves who "will scatter the sheep". We know that the OT canon was not settled by the Jews until late in the first century. So your arguement doesn't hold.
"Non-Catholics do not see oral tradition as a glove that fits Scripture to the truth but rather as a malleable and fluid doctrine used to make Scripture mean what the papacy wants it to. (I am, of course, speaking only for myself.) It is not wrong for anyone, including the pope, to try to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "
I know you don't. But you should. If Tradition is always maluable then why did Paul praise the Corinthians for how well they held to them:
1 Corinthians 11:2
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
Don't you think that the Holy Spirit can accomplish the passing on of authentic understanding. After all Jesus comand was that "all that I have commanded" be passed on. Your system allows it to get watered down because it can only be interpruted. Interprutation is easily as maluable as tradition. In fact far more so. That is why there is a Church with a different name on every block it seems these days.
And if you were honest you would admit that most Protestant teaching is passed on as a tradition. Baptists today believe what Baptists yesterday passed on to them regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
" I think Thessalonians dates to A.D. 52 or 53.
"And at that time much of the new testament had yet to be written. Therefore, much teaching was oral. 2 Timothy 2:2 says "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others." "
Here you admit to oral teaching. The problem you have is you cannot say when it was ended. Even by the time Timothy wrote his famous verse that everyone says confirms Sola Scriptura (2 Tim 3:16) not everything was written. If this verse confirms SS and you say they were still in the Oral phase at 2 Tim 2:2 then I see problems with the interprutation of 2 Tim 3:16. Especially since it was talking about the OT.
"This refers to Paul's preaching and teaching, which timothy had heard repeatedly on all three missionary journeys. Timothy dates to about 66 or 67 A.D. And it appears to merely tell Timothy to preach and pass on what Paul was preaching."
ORALLY.
" Given how prolific Paul was, I imagine that most or all of this found its way into the New Testament.""
"I imagine". So in 2 thes 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2 he says they are to accept some oral teaching. But where does he tell them that at some point he guarantees that it will all be inscripturated so his words in 2 Thes 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2 are no longer true. Further, up above you admitted that the canon of scripture was in flux until 400 AD. Even the NT canon was in question until then. So were they still in the oral phase in that time?
"I thought that Jesus was speaking to Peter in Matt 16:19 and not about all future claimants to be his successor under the tradition of the RCC."
You thought wrong. Key's are the key. I got keys to my house that grant me access and authority over that house. When I pass this house on I will give those keys to another. Further if you look in Is 22:22-23 you will see that Jesus closely parrels Matt 16:18 with that verse. He hands over authority of a office of succession, the steward, shebna, who holds the keys of the house of David, to a new and faithful steward, Eliakim. Now the steward was the spokesman for the king. Read Is 22 closely. Note the opening and shutting, similar to the binding and loosing of mt. 16:18. Now Shebna was the steward in long line of stewards. This also shows succession. Yes, I know, you don't agree. But it is true.
"By the way you phrase this, I it appears that there is no indication that the Corinthian Church did obey Clement of Rome. Also, even if they did, this could be as one Christian heeding the wisdom of another Christian brother and not as a subordinate required to recognize superior authority."
The fact is that the whole church looked upon this letter authoritatively. Clement also never excomunicated the corinthians which is an indication that they did obey. No further action was taken by Clement. I know it won't be good enough for you. Read Clements words. They are quite emphatic and authoritative. Hardly what would be written as an equal to another equal as you try to paint it. They are words that would be resisted by those who recieved them if they didn't have God-given authority behind them. That the rest of the Church so highly regarded them is a clear indication that they did.
Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Your "could be" is alot of hand waving considering your lack of study of the times. Bishop Sheen said "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant". Ignatius and others recognize the authoirty of the see of Rome. Irenaus while disagreeing with Victor about his imposing a date for Easter on the Quadramecians, does not deny his authority to excommuncate them. Noone does. St. Stephen declares that sins can be forgiven and a serious sinner can re-enter the Church by confession and penance for those sins in the mid 200's. A stance that has stood the test of time. This actually causes a couple of anti-popes to claim the papacy unlawfully, Hippolatus, who later reconciled, and Novatian. If he didn't have the authority to do this long before Constantine, why did some who disagreed feel the need to claim his own authority in Rome? The anti-popes ironically from my view clearly confirm the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
"If John and Clement are Christian brothers and what Clement is telling the Corinthians is correct, then why would John be displeased? Do you have any indication that John saw the letter?"
You miss the point. The authoritative tone is the point. Whether John saw the letter or not is immaterial. Your conjecture and speculation is no better than your conjecture and speculation on why Paul gave credibility to oral teaching at one point but then later at some point guaranteed that SS was the way to go. He simply doesn't.
"Might the tradition of "Appealing to Rome" have become established because of the legal tradition of appealing to Rome with regard to legal matters and then doing the same with respect to spiritual matters rather than because its biship is the "Heir of Peter" or the "Vicar of Christ?" That would seem as reasonable as using LXX because the early Christians spoke Greek and it was already translated and available rather than because the Apocrypha are reliable as canon."
So it wasn't because of Constantine. Once again more speculation to excuse you from accepting Jesus plain words that were often quoted in the Early Church regarind the link between the primacy of Rome and Mt. 16:18. Irenaus in 150 recognizes it. So should we.
"Do you have any firm, historical record of general appeal to Rome to settle disputes in churches far away (over 1,000 miles) at any time before Constantine?"
You can look up the Quadrametion heresy and the issue of readmission of sinners yourself on the internet. You likely won't accept my understandings of it anyway. As long as you have not read them yourself and do not understand the context of the Church in which they happened you are doomed to every man and his Bible when God says "I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding" Jer 3:15. You are doomed to the whims of personal interprutation of which Martin Luther even complaind that men are being "blown about by every wind of doctrine" with regard to the explosion of denominations after his beloved but very divisive reformation.
Blessings,
Thess
), although I think he underplayed the "certainty" of Carthage, didn't mention some other local councils that also addressed the issue around the same time (e.g. Hippo and, I think, Rome), and misdated St. Jerome's Vulgate a bit. (Jerome was in roughly the same time frame as Carthage, etc. -- within about a decade or so -- not a generation later. He died around 420, if memory serves.)
