Latin

[Laudate_Dominum]

And I've already presented different arguments on why those books were dropped. I'll give you a challenge though - give me one, just one church father who agreed with the synod's of carthage's results before it happened.

That's a mute point, because the opinion of a father is not authoritative. Neither is the opinion of Martin Luther authoritative, no matter what his arguments were.

Neither is your opinion authoritative. The ruling of Christ's Church, which recieves it's authority from Christ Himself is the only proper authority for such a thing.

And remember, Carthage was submitted to the Bishop of Rome for ratification, it was not considered official until the Pope of Rome, the vicar of Christ gave it his seal of approval.

Search these sources (there are more as well), and you will find the lists you desire, which include the deuterocanonical books which the protestants reject:

The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine.

On what basis do you claim the validity of your canon? Martin Luther's authority? The arguments? There are other arguments as well, that is hardly satisfying for something as essential as the Canon of Scripture. At the Council of Carthage good arguments were put forth in favor of texts which are in neither the protestant or Catholic Canon, must you start with nothing and try to deduce the Canon? Then God has given you quite a gift of discernment. What then is the basis of your faith? I, with St. Augustine, believe the Scriptures are the Word of God because the Church which Christ established and in which His promises reside has said it is so. Perhaps you believe because of a "burning in the bosom"? The mormons say this of their book. Anyway, I don't think your point amounts to much.

Edited January 26, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

And also Circle, as you know the Canon varied in the different parts of the Early Church, it was a mixed bag, but there was a certain consensus. The Four Holy Gospels being the prime example. And the authoritative pronouncement of the Canon reconciles many of the diverse "canons" (they weren't properly speaking 'canons' because that implies an authoritative pronouncement of the Church, they were traditions) that existed in the Church so one Father, or one region of the Church with that specific Canon wouldn't mean much. Properly speaking there was no Canon in the strict sense before the Church said so, there was a tradition which had a certain flexibility. What we know now to be Scriptural, inspired texts and some non-inspired but highly venerable early Christian writings (such as the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Epistles of Clement, etc) which are not Scripture, but are still good, holy, pious texts worthy of the faithful's reverence and admiration and valid testaments of the Church's early Tradition. Really though, it's all about the question of authority. Protestants have none, Catholics have too much at times. ;)

Edited January 26, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Ellenita]

Tina, thanks for jumping in on my behalf! :D

Circle,

You have about the clue of a dead leech as to why protestants have removed the books

I assume from your response that there is some scholarly reference to this comment, in which case please say. I make no claim to being a scholar, just someone who is earnestly seeking to know more about my God. It does amaze me however, that in the all the years spent in various protestant denominations, (and it's a tidy number I can tell you!) not once was the fact that books had been removed and then restored to the bible ever mentioned to me; indeed I would have been most shocked to find that out during this time since this was the very thing that I was taught by the churches to challenge JWs and Mormons on!

If however, your comment was not related to a particular reference, but is personal, I truely believe it says more about you than it does me.....

Edited January 26, 2004 by Ellenita

[Laudate_Dominum]

You have about the clue of a dead leech as to why protestants have removed the books.

Circle, I know a few things about the whole dispute and the history of the Canon and all that jazz. But the issue is not the arguments (both sides have formidable arguments, although I think the longer Canon still wins), the fundamental issue is one of authority. If it was just arguments then it would be a free for all, people would just hear different arguments and people could make up their own Canon (Truth would obviously include Enoch). The fact is protestants accept the Canon they accept not because of arguments, but because they belong to a tradition of men which holds that canon. A few centuries back some fallible, doctrinally confused persons, in a spirit of rebellion against the Church, took the liberty of deciding the "canon" for themselves, but you can't rightly call it a canon because that implies a legitimate authority, let's call it a tradition. It's simply the protestant tradition. Many protestant groups in fact are modifying the canon on their own. I've heard of groups that accept late dated gnostic gospels and whatever else. Whatever floats your boat right?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Bump! :)

[DojoGrant]

Latin is a language that does away (or never fell into) the traps of English and modern languages that provide all kinds of ambiguities. Based on Latin's usage of endings and signs, you know exactly how a sentence is to be readl

[Laudate_Dominum]

Bumped in hope of a protestant reply.

Bruce S accuses us Catholics of "stone-walling" him in "debates", but my experience has been the other way around, it seems that we provide the prots with responses and they utterly ignore them. Has anyone had this problem? What's up with that?