tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8006752258097115907..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther's "Epistle of Straw" CommentJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82123308111731288122020-03-12T13:17:08.046-04:002020-03-12T13:17:08.046-04:00Obrigado!Obrigado!Neilom Soareshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13763688129322090447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8407394369676916652020-03-12T13:16:29.211-04:002020-03-12T13:16:29.211-04:00Alguém pode listar ( com fontes), autoridades ecle...Alguém pode listar ( com fontes), autoridades eclesiásticas, que a exemplo de Lutero, duvidaram da canonicidade da carta de Tiago?<br /><br />Grato!Neilom Soareshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13763688129322090447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80050085802407010102020-03-12T13:14:24.028-04:002020-03-12T13:14:24.028-04:00Alguém pode listar, outros personagens históricos ...Alguém pode listar, outros personagens históricos que colocaram em dúvidas a canonicidade da carta de Tiago?<br /><br />Grato!Neilom Soareshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13763688129322090447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19175879125738604832012-11-28T12:42:22.955-05:002012-11-28T12:42:22.955-05:00Lord, have mercy.Lord, have mercy.Texas Seraphimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431635961673171869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14721025364284033072009-08-08T00:29:56.381-04:002009-08-08T00:29:56.381-04:00It's depleting even to scan the long list of p...<i> It's depleting even to scan the long list of posts from someone who is full of venom for the sake of his institution.</i><br /><br />Yes, agreed. Fortunately, when my schedule picks up, I often can't even keep up with the comments.<br /><br /><i>I came to this blog looking for good information about Luther's "epistle of straw" comment, and I found it. Thank you.</i><br /><br />You're welcome. I've written a lot on Luther and Scripture, simply search my blog. Feel free to check my facts and sources. If I can further verify something for you, let me know. <br /><br /><i>But I regret not ending my reading before the comments. Whether it's political blogs or religious ones, the ugliness on Internet comments sites is demoralizing for us, not only followers of Jesus, but people of faith, and all of God's children everywhere. More than that - it is a sin. May God have mercy on us!</i><br /><br />This is an older entry. I often can't recall all the comments, or sometimes even the post. I skimmed through the comments on this post, and noticed that some of the key antagonists still spend their time here attacking, usually missing the target. I can delete their comments, but then the charge is: you won't allow comments, you're scared, or know you're wrong, etc. So I leave them up, interact with them when I have the time, and trust that at least a few people can see the truth through the battle.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26916323695493365192009-08-08T00:29:49.112-04:002009-08-08T00:29:49.112-04:00Hello huey's mom,
An observation, after spend...Hello huey's mom,<br /><br /><i>An observation, after spending some time scrolling through these comments: What does any of this have to do with the heart of the gospel? Where is love, or justice, or healing, or salvation?<br /></i><br /><br />I can't speak for anyone's comments except for my own. My defense of Luther and the Reformation stems from a love for the Gospel. When Roman Catholics bring up the "epistle of straw" comment, it is simply an attack against sola fide. If we boil it all down, many Roman Catholics believe Luther simply invented his own Gospel, and they'll do anything to discredit him, so as to discredit the Gospel. The justice of it all, is presenting the truth about Luther and the Reformation, and pointing out bogus argumentation. Healing? I would hope some of the Roman Catholics that so vehemently oppose sola fide will at least see their argumentation is faulty, and perhaps take a deeper look into the scriptures, perhaps they will experience the healing of the soul. Salvation? Yes, indeed, my hope is God's Spirit will take dead sinners and bring them to spiritual life. There isn't salvation apart from the Gospel. The Reformers shouted the Gospel throughout their age. I defend them, because they defended the Gospel.<br /><br /><i>I deeply appreciate the honorable efforts of all who tried to maintain a reasonable (and fruitful) conversation with a hostile party. However, this is no more possible with people arguing as he does than it is to argue with Protestant fundamentalists. They are not open to real dialogue.</i><br /><br />True enough. I don't expect many to be swayed from zealous irrationality. There are those who seek out answers to argumentation about the Reformation- and quite frankly, there weren't too many people that I found taking the time to answer Catholic arguments against Luther and the Reformation when I started the blog. If anything I do keeps someone from buying into Rome's false Gospel, even if it were just one person, that's enough for me to keep doing what I do. <br /><br /><i>By the way, the person who first pointed out to me the futility of engaging Protestant fundamentalists was the chair of the department where I was studying for a graduate degree in Catholic theology (I later taught at that university). </i><br /><br />I don't engage people because I think I can convert them, only God can do that. Perhaps I'm just a step along their path to the truth. I defend what in know to be true. That's enough of a motivation for me.<br /><br /><i>I simply applied the same reasoning to Catholic fundamentalists, who are multiplying under the present papacy and the decline of the Roman Catholic church in more educated nations.<br />Fundamentalism is a reactionary digging in when the ground seems to be shifting underneath.</i><br /><br />As to Catholic fundamentalists, if you mean the current batch of layman apologetics, like Catholic Answers, I can at least respect them for trying to take their faith more seriously than liberals. Catholicism though is a wide spectrum of voices. I often wonder if those like the Catholic Answers crowd that take their faith so seriously, aren't a minority, and not representative of a typical Catholic. Other than at debates, or conferences, I rarely meet an educated conservative Catholic, like those of the Catholic Answers ilk. <br /><br /><i>I suggest that Mr. Swan might consider deleting posts from anyone who would refer to one of the Reformers as a "monster." Irenic? Definitely not. </i><br /><br />I went through a period in which I allowed anyone to say almost anything. That of course, only led to people taking advantage of the blog. I then began deleting their posts. That seemed to tone down some of the trouble. Recently, I began allowing a bit more negativity, but my patience is wearing thin again. if anything, their comments speak to the nature of their hearts, and their comments serve more to their defeat.<br /><br />continued-James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71022436681384300882009-08-07T21:20:32.893-04:002009-08-07T21:20:32.893-04:00An observation, after spending some time scrolling...An observation, after spending some time scrolling through these comments: What does any of this have to do with the heart of the gospel? Where is love, or justice, or healing, or salvation?<br /><br />I deeply appreciate the honorable efforts of all who tried to maintain a reasonable (and fruitful) conversation with a hostile party. However, this is no more possible with people arguing as he does than it is to argue with Protestant fundamentalists. They are not open to real dialogue.<br /><br />By the way, the person who first pointed out to me the futility of engaging Protestant fundamentalists was the chair of the department where I was studying for a graduate degree in Catholic theology (I later taught at that university). <br /><br />I simply applied the same reasoning to Catholic fundamentalists, who are multiplying under the present papacy and the decline of the Roman Catholic church in more educated nations.<br />Fundamentalism is a reactionary digging in when the ground seems to be shifting underneath.<br /><br />I suggest that Mr. Swan might consider deleting posts from anyone who would refer to one of the Reformers as a "monster." Irenic? Definitely not. <br /><br />It's depleting even to scan the long list of posts from someone who is full of venom for the sake of his institution.<br /><br />I came to this blog looking for good information about Luther's "epistle of straw" comment, and I found it. Thank you.<br /><br />But I regret not ending my reading before the comments. Whether it's political blogs or religious ones, the ugliness on Internet comments sites is demoralizing for us, not only followers of Jesus, but people of faith, and all of God's children everywhere. More than that - it is a sin. May God have mercy on us!<br /><br />It's no wonder that so many young people want nothing to do with us in the church.huey's momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616001599428129800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30327511158841837082008-07-01T00:06:00.000-04:002008-07-01T00:06:00.000-04:00"So, James is completely correct in his assessment..."So, James is completely correct in his assessment that Luther's opinion of the Book of James was perfectly allowable prior to the decree of Trent"<BR/><BR/>This seems to me to be about as rational as saying that one may walk into ones local protestant church and it be perfectly allowable to state that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not scripture. Technically, I guess you can, and there is no dogmatic statement saying you can't. In reality, it isn't going to work, nor should it.orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89704276919681445992008-06-25T17:35:00.000-04:002008-06-25T17:35:00.000-04:00While Matthew enjoys stringing up Luther and beati...<I>While Matthew enjoys stringing up Luther and beating him mercilessly with a Ludwig Ott book, </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, James, I don't think Ott is on Matthew's side on this one. <BR/><BR/>If Matthew is going to beat anyone with anything, it will have to be with his own opinion since he has yet to provide us with much else.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44353413340737718712008-06-25T15:31:00.000-04:002008-06-25T15:31:00.000-04:00Oh no, its the the Gloss Ordinaria argument again....Oh no, its the the Gloss Ordinaria argument again...I won't even bother to comment on this one. Its been defeated over and over and over again. Almost like the call no man father argument. Not even worth addressing.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37972676351131177532008-06-25T11:28:00.000-04:002008-06-25T11:28:00.000-04:00If Matthew is correct, the Gloss Ordinaria, the mi...If Matthew is correct, the Gloss Ordinaria, the middle ages commentary should not exist, no?<BR/><BR/>The Prologue to the Gloss, then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon, and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha, all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. <B>Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. </B>Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole,<BR/><BR/>The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. <B>It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support.</B> When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.htmlbkayceehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735441833526239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3317380324245311972008-06-25T07:21:00.000-04:002008-06-25T07:21:00.000-04:00BJ, I did include others who questioned it and I s...BJ, I did include others who questioned it and I said they were wrong and were worthy of correction as well. Here is a quote from an earlier post.<BR/><BR/>"Luther was clearly way beyond the scope of the Church once he started slandering Sacred Scripture. He was one of the few to do so in the manner in which he did, and anyone else that questioned it was also in error and worthy of correction by the Church, whether in was "infallibly" solemnly defined or not."James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5915392262762402122008-06-25T07:06:00.000-04:002008-06-25T07:06:00.000-04:00This is my 2 minute blog check in I do every morni...This is my 2 minute blog check in I do every morning. <BR/><BR/>If I were to revise this entry, (which I'm not going to do) I would probably add something to the effect that theologians holding differing opinions on the canon previous to Trent did not fall under any kind of anathema, because of a lack of dogmatic pronouncement from Mother Rome on the Canon. So in a sense, they were allowed a freedom to hold their views without being declared heretical, and remember, anathemas don't work backwards, if I recall.<BR/><BR/>While Matthew enjoys stringing up Luther and beating him mercilessly with a Ludwig Ott book, he should then look at the line of Catholic theologians forming behind Luther in need of a good beating. <BR/><BR/>I suggest getting multiple copies of Ott's book, because he's going to go through them rapidly in applying his backwards anathema. Here's a tip: a good hard back will help in the beatings, and will last longer than the softcovers.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88959790529343529202008-06-25T04:23:00.000-04:002008-06-25T04:23:00.000-04:00Matthew,You know that I have defended Catholics on...Matthew,<BR/><BR/>You know that I have defended Catholics on this board before. I am not out to blast Catholics at all, but I am afraid that I must agree with Carrie. I don't see how you have proven your point. Perhaps, I've missed it. I haven't seen you quote official documents, and I haven't understood your logic. Perhaps that is just me, but I'm unconvinced.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>We are to think that everyone before Trent went around questioning what the books of the canon were? Everyone challenging different books and taking what they wanted and left what they didn't like? Every man with his own theological opinion of what books were worthy of belief and which were not?</I><BR/><BR/>That's not a fair representation of what is being said here, and it's a false dichotomy. For instance, take the doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. That is not an infallibly defined doctrine. However, I know of <I>very few</I> Catholics who disagree with this. There isn't every man running around teaching this or that about Mary in this regard. <BR/><BR/>Plus, as has been presented to you several times, there were many faithful Catholics who disagreed about the canon before Trent. Why don't you attribute to them the same audacity that you attribute to Luther? Why were they free to question James, but Luther wasn't? You said at least Jerome kept the deuterocanonicals in his list, but I don't remember Luther removing James, even though he questioned it. <BR/><BR/>Again, it could just be me, but I don't see a fair and balanced treatment of Luther and Cajetan, for instance. Could you clarify your argument, cite some official documents, and address the OT, as well? I know that I would find that helpful.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, and blessings,<BR/><BR/>BJ<BR/><A HREF="http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Stupid Scholar</A><BR/><A HREF="http://dailybiblereflections.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Daily Bible Reflections</A>BJ Burackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613575838269069020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31691898052878494692008-06-24T20:29:00.000-04:002008-06-24T20:29:00.000-04:00Oh , but the Encyclopedia says so. If James Swan c...<I>Oh , but the Encyclopedia says so. If James Swan can quote from his Catholic Encyclopedia and hold it as a reliable source, than why can't I?</I><BR/><BR/>Matthew, <BR/><BR/>You seem to have missed the rest of that article that says:<BR/><BR/>"The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal." <BR/><BR/>"The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity."<BR/><BR/>"The great constructive Synod of Trent had put the sacredness and canonicity of the whole traditional Bible forever beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics."<BR/><BR/><I>It seems that no matter what any Catholic says, you will never concede to being wrong. </I><BR/><BR/>No, you just haven't proven your point and your opinion is in conflict with many other Roman Catholics and RC source material.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26175242022712210372008-06-24T18:55:00.000-04:002008-06-24T18:55:00.000-04:00Oh , but the Encyclopedia says so. If James Swan c...Oh , but the Encyclopedia says so. If James Swan can quote from his Catholic Encyclopedia and hold it as a reliable source, than why can't I? I have proven my point. The canon was defined as worthy of belief long before Trent. It was an ordinary universal teaching of the Church.<BR/><BR/>I think Charles George Herbermann's credentials speak for themselves. He was a Latin scholar who held a Doctorate in Law. I am sure he understood the Church and its operations and definitions very well. <BR/><BR/>It seems that no matter what any Catholic says, you will never concede to being wrong. To say the canon was not worthy of belief before Trent is completely absurd.<BR/>We are to think that everyone before Trent went around questioning what the books of the canon were? Everyone challenging different books and taking what they wanted and left what they didn't like? Every man with his own theological opinion of what books were worthy of belief and which were not? It is quite the realm of theological fantasy, and we do not see constant challenges by the Church, in her documents or in her councils that would make this premise be worthy of belief. It is quite the contrary. The universal teaching of Church councils and documents, reaffirmations by the pope's etc all prove my point. <BR/> <BR/>Charles George Herbermann<BR/><BR/>HERBERMANN, Charles George, educator, born near Munster, Westphalia, 8 December, 1840. He came to the United States with his parents at the age of ten, and was graduated at St. Francis Xavier's college, New York city, in 1858. After teaching there for several years, he was appointed in 1869 professor of Latin in the College of the city of New York, and was made librarian there in 1873. He received the degree of LL. D. from St. Francis Xavier in 1884. He has published "Business Life in Ancient Rome" (New York, 1880), and an edition of Sallust's "Jugurtha" (1886), and is a frequent contributor to the "Catholic Quarterly Review" and other periodicals.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35635063350348638462008-06-24T17:58:00.000-04:002008-06-24T17:58:00.000-04:00During the deliberations of the Council (Trent) th...<I>During the deliberations of the Council (Trent) there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scriptures. Neither — and this is remarkable — in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings.</I><BR/><BR/>That is not entirely true.<BR/><BR/>For those who are interested in some of the difficulties around the canon discussions at Trent, see the posts <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Council%20of%20Trent" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-were-some-of-best-scholars-at.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A>Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27670340286147857192008-06-24T07:56:00.000-04:002008-06-24T07:56:00.000-04:00Since you love to quote Catholic Encyclopedias, ho...Since you love to quote Catholic Encyclopedias, how about this one written by By Charles George Herbermann Published 1913<BR/><BR/>He also affirms what I said about the prior councils and tradition of the canon in the Church.<BR/><BR/>"During the deliberations of the Council (Trent) there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scriptures. Neither — and this is remarkable — in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding œcumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition."James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86118958722432665132008-06-24T07:25:00.000-04:002008-06-24T07:25:00.000-04:00Well for Catholics there seems to be no confusion....Well for Catholics there seems to be no confusion. Authors and scholars like Henry Graham seem to be very clear about it and see no problem with the canon before Trent and see it as being plainly defined by the Church and her ordinary teaching. It seems that you are the one who does not understand Catholicism or how the Church defines doctrine and dogma, and how infallibility works. I have provided the many councils and Popes that defined it well before Trent that proves my point.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84924858461877473872008-06-24T07:05:00.000-04:002008-06-24T07:05:00.000-04:00Matthew, I am not going to continue to argue with ...Matthew, <BR/><BR/>I am not going to continue to argue with you. You still have not quoted one official document to backup your assertions and the counter-evidence provided by the rest of us is against you.<BR/><BR/>One last thing, though. You said "If thats not good enough for you, although I think it is well beyond adequate, then there is no way Luther could deny Florence and its binding authoritative pronouncement on the Canon in the West". <BR/><BR/>I will just add that at the Council of Trent there was discussion about whether or not the Council of Florence was binding as many bishops at the Council did not believe it was. If the bishops of Trent were unclear about the Council of Florence, then likely so was Luther and others. This just goes back to the general confusion in Catholicism as to what is or is not binding, which seems to be playing out also in this discussion.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2426629563279222012008-06-23T19:48:00.000-04:002008-06-23T19:48:00.000-04:00Look, I have already demonstrated that the Canon w...Look, I have already demonstrated that the Canon was indeed taught through the centuries well before the Council of Trent, and was universally taught and affirmed by the Church many times. The local and universal council's of the Church and the Pope's in the Church have all taught consistently what was considered the Biblical Canon, well before Luther. As Ott taught in his book that was quoted by Carrie, something does not have to be solemnly declared in order for it to be an article of faith. I have said this the last 3 or 4 posts now.<BR/><BR/>The Canon was listed by several councils, including an ecumenical council before Luther. The Council of Hippo in 393 was confirmed by Carthage in 397, then passed on to Pope Innocent the I in 405 who agreed with their pronouncements, then a second Council in Carthage in 419 was also sent to Pope Boniface for approval. Finally in order that no one be confused as to Luther's knowledge and accountability to the Church regarding the Canon, the Ecumenical Council of Florence decreed the same list again in 1442 well before Luther. Although some may dispute the Council of Florence's authority over the Eastern Church, no one will deny Florence's binding upon the Western Church, which included Luther. <BR/><BR/>No matter where you take your arguments to excuse Luther, you find yourself cornered. The universally held Canon by the Church did not have to be "infallibly" defined in the proper sense in order for it to be understood to be doctrine and fit for belief. Luther indeed was in opposition to the Church in his inexcusable comments on Sacred Scripture. <BR/><BR/>As Ott wrote, ""All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching."<BR/><BR/>The above criterion is clearly met without a solemn definition, and clearly meets the later definition that Ott gives, that it was an ordinary and universal authoritative teaching by the Church for 1000 years before Luther. If thats not good enough for you, although I think it is well beyond adequate, then there is no way Luther could deny Florence and its binding authoritative pronouncement on the Canon in the West. Luther was clearly way beyond the scope of the Church once he started slandering Sacred Scripture. He was one of the few to do so in the manner in which he did, and anyone else that questioned it was also in error and worthy of correction by the Church, whether in was "infallibly" solemnly defined or not.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87083573106465764062008-06-23T12:15:00.000-04:002008-06-23T12:15:00.000-04:00Mr. Bellisario,James is utilizing a principle of C...Mr. Bellisario,<BR/><BR/>James is utilizing a principle of Catholic theology and orthodoxy against certain Catholic understandings of Fr. Luther; namely, that a Catholic, in this case Fr. Luther, has the freedom to disagree or reject a teaching that has not been infallibly pronounced or defined. <BR/><BR/>Your response has been to simply state another principal of Catholic theology and orthodoxy, namely, that the Magisterium (i.e., the Pope and those bishops who agree with him) does not have to exercise the charism of infallibility formally (i.e., in a Council the Pope approves or an <I>ex cathedra</I> statement by the Pope himself), but that the Ordinary Magisterium, too, can exercise the charism of infallibility. For example, as you have stated, the ordination of women is not something that has been formally infallibly proounced, but via the Ordinary Magisterium it is an infallible teaching.<BR/><BR/>Having said all of this, you have placed yourself under a tremendous amount of burden. Please hear me out:<BR/><BR/>For one thing, you must now provide documentation that the Bible was, like women ordination, something that was taught by the Ordinary Magisterium down through the centuries. Further, in light of your statement that a Catholic must take into account the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, you must now clarify what the criteria is for a Catholic to know whether or not he/she has the right to dissent. Lastly, you have yet to clarify your utiilization of Fr. Luther's character as a means of stripping him, and many other Catholics, of their freedom over teachings not infallibly pronounced or defined. You seemed to have been saying that Bernard of Clairvaux had good character, therefore, he had the right to reject the Immaculate Conception.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38978081404833945902008-06-23T10:30:00.000-04:002008-06-23T10:30:00.000-04:00I said previously "If memory serves me correctly, ...I said previously "If memory serves me correctly, Erasmus and Cajetan (two Roman Catholics) questioned portions of the NT."<BR/><BR/>In fact, Erasmus and Cajetan also questioned the Epistle of James.<BR/><BR/><I>"In the first centuries of the Church the authenticity of the Epistle was doubted by some, and amongst others by Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is therefore deuterocanonical. It is wanting in the Muratorian Canon, and because of the silence of several of the Western Churches regarding it, Eusebius classes it amongst the Antilegomena or contested writings (Hist. eccl., III, xxv; II, xxiii); St. Jerome gives the like information (De vir. ill., ii), but adds that with time its authenticity became universally admitted. In the sixteenth century its inspired nature was contested by Erasmus and Cajetan; Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent dogmatically defined the Epistle of St. James to be canonical." <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08275b.htm" REL="nofollow">Cath Encycl</A></I><BR/><BR/><BR/>If Luther is a heretic for questioning the canonicity of James, then the pope sent the heretic Cajetan to deal with the heretic Luther. Doesn''t quite makae sense.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22845877250794117952008-06-23T09:43:00.000-04:002008-06-23T09:43:00.000-04:00It appears Mark Shea would also disagree with Matt...It appears Mark Shea would also disagree with Matthew:<BR/><BR/>"First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. <B>Likewise, 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. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon.</B>" <A HREF="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html" REL="nofollow">source</A>Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69738039748753283782008-06-23T09:34:00.000-04:002008-06-23T09:34:00.000-04:00According to an RC authorityparadigm, how should t...<I>According to an RC authority<BR/>paradigm, how should those that faultered in seeing a particular book as authoritative and canonical be treated previous to Trent's dogmatic decree on the canon?</I><BR/><BR/>It probably depends on which direction the argument comes from as with your examples of debates with Dr. White. <BR/><BR/>I was reminded of this Q&A from Envoy:<BR/><BR/><I><B>Q</B> A Protestant I know has claimed that the Council of Hippo did not have the book of Baruch on its canon list and therefore could not have been, as Catholics claim, the council defining the canon until the Council of Trent. Can you confirm or deny this?<BR/><BR/><B>A</B> Maybe some Catholics make this claim, but I don’t think there is any such official claim on the part of the Church. The Council of Hippo was only a regional council of North African bishops. There was no definition of the canon of Scripture by an ecumenical council before Trent.</I> <BR/><A HREF="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/ihaveaquestion.htm" REL="nofollow">source</A><BR/><BR/>Perhaps whether the definition of the canon was defined at Trent or prior (or whether it was an "ordinary and universal authoritative teaching" prior to Trent) is all encompassed in a "theological opinion" so Catholics can have free judgment on the doctrinal/dogma status of the canon before Trent. Matthew has his opinion, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Congar, Envoy, etc. have another. <BR/><BR/>Hence we may never get a straight answer on this.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.com