Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Heretic here. Happy Father's Day!

---

Thank you sir...U2!

And just 2 years later, at the Council of...Rome....Pope Damasus infallibly declared the canon of the Bible....

---

Maybe not:

"Deciding" the Canon of Scripture: Damasus and the Council of Rome in 382 AD

The Banned said:

---

The argument is basically "well they didn't explicitly say they were formally deciding what the canon should be", even though that was the canon they were telling everyone else to use.

The other argument is that we don't have the original source documents from the Council, and it's only a later decree that says these books were decreed back then. If that is the standard every single thing we believe must meet, we can basically throw everything we believe out the window.

---

That's not at all what the article I linked said.

It makes the following points:

1. That claim about the Council of Rome first appeared in the 1970s-80s. There is no record of that claim prior to then.

2. The Council was not an ecumenical council, but only one local to Rome.

3. Pope Damasus couldn't have issued a "decree" since the first Papal decretal wasn't issued until 385, after the death of Damasus.

4. What little we know about the Council of Rome, from which the Damasus decree supposedly originated, comes from the later Gelasian Decree. But the copy of that Decree is unreliable since language in it is an exact copy of a passage from Augustine at least 24 years, and likely much more, later. Most scholars today consider the Gelasian decree to be an anonymous work from the 6th century.

What are your historical citations to support that the Council of Rome or Pope Damasus "decided" the Canon?

A quick look at the author's bio revealed this quote.
"My formal education and training are modest and I am not a scholar. Nor do I claim to be an authority on anything".

dg77ag said:

---

A quick look at the author's bio revealed this quote.
"My formal education and training are modest and I am not a scholar. Nor do I claim to be an authority on anything".

---

OK, then, it should be easy to point out where he's wrong and provide support for your points.

Jerome mentions the Council of Rome twice and apparently never mentions any statements on the Canon from it nor any decree from Pope Damasus, which he surely would have if such important matters had been decided or decreed. And an ecumenical council was being held at the same time in Constantinople.

KingofHazor said:

---

The Banned said:

---

The argument is basically "well they didn't explicitly say they were formally deciding what the canon should be", even though that was the canon they were telling everyone else to use.

The other argument is that we don't have the original source documents from the Council, and it's only a later decree that says these books were decreed back then. If that is the standard every single thing we believe must meet, we can basically throw everything we believe out the window.

---

That's not at all what the article I linked said.

It makes the following points:

1. That claim about the Council of Rome first appeared in the 1970s-80s. There is no record of that claim prior to then.

2. The Council was not an ecumenical council, but only one local to Rome.

3. Pope Damasus couldn't have issued a "decree" since the first Papal decretal wasn't issued until 385, after the death of Damasus.

4. What little we know about the Council of Rome, from which the Damasus decree supposedly originated, comes from the later Gelasian Decree. But the copy of that Decree is unreliable since language in it is an exact copy of a passage from Augustine at least 24 years, and likely much more, later. Most scholars today consider the Gelasian decree to be an anonymous work from the 6th century.

What are your historical citations to support that the Council of Rome or Pope Damasus "decided" the Canon?

---

I was summarizing. We'll do it your way.

1. Let's say the Gelasian decree was a 6th century invention. Fine. How can you say the claim about the council first appears in the 1970s-80s? This does not give the author of the article a good look.

2. A council in Constantinople sent a letter to Rome to give report. Whatever Rome did was never just "local". Hence the Council of Carthage a few years later sending their canon list to Rome for confirmation.

3. The author shows the word "decretal" was first used in 385. The word "trinity" was first used in 180. That doesn't mean the trinitarian beliefs of Christians didn't exist from 33-179. "Decrees" existed long before 385, they just weren't called decrees. Think Clement sending a letter to the Corinthians to tell them get in line. That's a "decree" whether the word was used or not.

4.Augustine was in constant contact with Rome. He repeatedly pointed to the unique authority of Rome. His regional council of Hippo published an identical canon, as noted by the council of Carthage, who asked Rome to confirm it. I posit it is far more likely Augustine passed on the teaching of the Church he was well acquainted with. And it is NOT an exact quote, which bolsters my claim. Go read them again. The author makes far too strong of a claim. The quotes are very SIMILAR, which lines up with a tradition continuing. If a future author was "quoting", he did a terrible job.

Besides the historical fact of the Council of Rome in 382, there is also the Council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397, all proclaiming the same 73 books of the canon of the Bible...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Council-of-Hippo.html

https://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

The bottom line in all of this is that the Catholic Church in the 4th Century infallibly declared all 73 books of the Bible to be divinely inspired. They weren't picked because of a burning in the bosom, and they didn't fall down from heaven in a leather bound book. The Pope and the Church and its councils infallibly declared them to be canonical...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Besides the historical fact of the Council of Rome in 382, there is also the Council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397, all proclaiming the same 73 books of the canon of the Bible...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Council-of-Hippo.html

https://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

The bottom line in all of this is that the Catholic Church in the 4th Century infallibly declared all 73 books of the Bible to be divinely inspired. They weren't picked because of a burning in the bosom, and they didn't fall down from heaven in a leather bound book. The Pope and the Church and its councils infallibly declared them to be canonical...

---

Oh yeah? I am going to need you to show me in the 66 books of the real canon where it says there are 73 books in the canon and not 66. Sola Scriptura!

Yeah, but Rome Rome Rome did Rome and Rome

And Wittenberg did Wittenberg, in violation of John 17...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

All 73 are in the first bible ever printed on the printing press, the Gutenberg bible, in the century before Luther was botn. No bible before Luther only had 66 books - They ALL had 73.

---

Well, aside from the Hebrew canon, Jerome's list of canonical books, Athanasius's list, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and many other early fathers, you may be right.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Besides the historical fact of the Council of Rome in 382, there is also the Council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397, all proclaiming the same 73 books of the canon of the Bible...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Council-of-Hippo.html

https://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

The bottom line in all of this is that the Catholic Church in the 4th Century infallibly declared all 73 books of the Bible to be divinely inspired. They weren't picked because of a burning in the bosom, and they didn't fall down from heaven in a leather bound book. The Pope and the Church and its councils infallibly declared them to be canonical...

---

Oh yeah? I am going to need you to show me in the 66 books of the real canon where it says there are 73 books in the canon and not 66. Sola Scriptura!

---

Oh, really. Show me what was decided at the Council of Hippo. Transcripts? Was it an ecumenical or only regional council?

And was the Council of Hippo regional or ecumenical? If Damasus and the Council of Rome had already decided the Canon, why did the Council of Hippo make no mention of either?

What were the Fathers who listed the canonical books prior to Rome, Hippo and Carthage relying upon? How could they call they call the books they quoted scripture if the RCC had not yet decided that they were scripture?

What did the writers of the NT mean when they referred to each other's writings as "scripture"? How could they, if it is the RCC that decides what is scripture?

KingofHazor said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Besides the historical fact of the Council of Rome in 382, there is also the Council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397, all proclaiming the same 73 books of the canon of the Bible...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Council-of-Hippo.html

https://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

The bottom line in all of this is that the Catholic Church in the 4th Century infallibly declared all 73 books of the Bible to be divinely inspired. They weren't picked because of a burning in the bosom, and they didn't fall down from heaven in a leather bound book. The Pope and the Church and its councils infallibly declared them to be canonical...

---

Oh yeah? I am going to need you to show me in the 66 books of the real canon where it says there are 73 books in the canon and not 66. Sola Scriptura!

---

Oh, really. Show me what was decided at the Council of Hippo. Transcripts? Was it an ecumenical or only regional council?

And was the Council of Hippo regional or ecumenical? If Damasus and the Council of Rome had already decided the Canon, why did the Council of Hippo make no mention of either?

What were the Fathers who listed the canonical books prior to Rome, Hippo and Carthage relying upon? How could they call they call the books they quoted scripture if the RCC had not yet decided that they were scripture?

What did the writers of the NT mean when they referred to each other's writings as "scripture"? How could they, if it is the RCC that decides what is scripture?

---

As soon as you produce and prove a divinely ordained table of contents for the "Bible" (whatever that means, which we will just assume for the sake of this discussion although it cannot be demonstrated) by using the Bible alone, I will pay attention to all the things you typed above.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

As soon as you produce and prove a divinely ordained table of contents for the "Bible" (whatever that means, which we will just assume for the sake of this discussion although it cannot be demonstrated) by using the Bible alone, I will pay attention to all the things you typed above.

---

Huh? That must have seemed persuasive in your mind. I asked for sources and authority. That all you got? Where did your Church councils get their "Table of Contents"?

Do you realize the dumb implications of what you just wrote? Did Paul, Jude, or Peter have a table of contents? Did Clement of Rome (whom y'all claim was the first pope)? Did Ignatius, Polycarp, Basilides, Papias, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tatian, the early Churches in Gaul, Donysius, Ireneus, Heracleon, Hippolytus, the Old Latin Translation, Tertullian, Clement of Carthage, Novatian, Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and others?

What did the Council of Nicaea rely upon in reaching its conclusions? Were they just making stuff up?

We have portions of complete Bibles from before those early church councils such as the Old Latin translation (which formed the basis of the RCC Bible for centuries), the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus. Where did they come from?

By requiring the formal imprimatur of the RCC, you are discounting the even more important imprimatur of the Holy Spirit.

KingofHazor said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

As soon as you produce and prove a divinely ordained table of contents for the "Bible" (whatever that means, which we will just assume for the sake of this discussion although it cannot be demonstrated) by using the Bible alone, I will pay attention to all the things you typed above.

---

Huh? That must have seemed persuasive in your mind. I asked for sources and authority. That all you got? Where did your Church councils get their "Table of Contents"?

Do you realize the dumb implications of what you just wrote? Did Paul, Jude, or Peter have a table of contents? Did Clement of Rome (whom y'all claim was the first pope)? Did Ignatius, Polycarp, Basilides, Papias, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tatian, the early Churches in Gaul, Donysius, Ireneus, Heracleon, Hippolytus, the Old Latin Translation, Tertullian, Clement of Carthage, Novatian, Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and others?

What did the Council of Nicaea rely upon in reaching its conclusions? Were they just making stuff up?

We have portions of complete Bibles from before those early church councils such as the Old Latin translation (which formed the basis of the RCC Bible for centuries), the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus. Where did they come from?

By requiring the formal imprimatur of the RCC, you are discounting the even more important imprimatur of the Holy Spirit.

---

There's really no point in responding. I have failed to articulate my thoughts in a way that you can understand. Peace.

Quote:

---

There's really no point in responding. I have failed to articulate my thoughts in a way that you can understand. Peace.

---

When you replied to me with a smart-aleck response, what did you expect back? Even in this your latest response, you can't help but add a put down followed by "Peace". Really?

It's all google-able for the serious posters....

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

There's really no point in responding. I have failed to articulate my thoughts in a way that you can understand. Peace.

---

When you replied to me with a smart-aleck response, what did you expect back? Even in this your latest response, you can't help but add a put down followed by "Peace". Really?

---

I wasn't trying to be a smart-aleck. I was trying to show how absurd the foundation of the Protestant belief system. There was no put down. I literally meant I as not able to articulate what I was trying to articulate. So, rather than tru to articulate further, I am simply ceasing. I apologize if I offended you.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time.

There was a patriarch in Rome that was part of the greater Orthodox Catholic Church.

Weird revision

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time.

---

The Catholic Church has existed since the Last Supper....

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time.

---

The Catholic Church has existed since the Last Supper....

---

Roman Catholic != Catholic. HTH

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

---

The way Church history and Catholic apologetics address this usually comes down to separating the pagan political empire from the Church itself. You have to separate the pagan empire from the Church that grew inside it.

For the RCC Latin provides consistency and control.

As an Orthodox we don't agree with Latin (Gospels were entirely Greek) or the need to exercise singular control over everyone through one central authority.

RCC believe in Rome/Pope. Orthodox believe in the local Church and wherever the Eucharist and Bishops are. Language doesn't matter.

The Roman Empire was seen as civilizing and advancing the world. Christianity obviously wanted to coop that.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

---

The way Church history and Catholic apologetics address this usually comes down to separating the pagan political empire from the Church itself. You have to separate the pagan empire from the Church that grew inside it.

For the RCC Latin provides consistency and control.

As an Orthodox we don't agree with Latin (Gospels were entirely Greek) or the need to exercise singular control over everyone through one central authority.

RCC believe in Rome/Pope. Orthodox believe in the local Church and wherever the Eucharist and Bishops are. Language doesn't matter.

The Roman Empire was seen as civilizing and advancing the world. Christianity obviously wanted to coop that.

---

It's straying off topic, but the whole "The Devil hates Latin" thing doesn't make sense when we celebrate Sts Cyril and Methodius for creating Slavonic to bring the gospel to the Rus people.

TSJ said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

---

The way Church history and Catholic apologetics address this usually comes down to separating the pagan political empire from the Church itself. You have to separate the pagan empire from the Church that grew inside it.

For the RCC Latin provides consistency and control.

As an Orthodox we don't agree with Latin (Gospels were entirely Greek) or the need to exercise singular control over everyone through one central authority.

RCC believe in Rome/Pope. Orthodox believe in the local Church and wherever the Eucharist and Bishops are. Language doesn't matter.

The Roman Empire was seen as civilizing and advancing the world. Christianity obviously wanted to coop that.

---

It's straying off topic, but the whole "The Devil hates Latin" thing doesn't make sense when we celebrate Sts Cyril and Methodius for creating Slavonic to bring the gospel to the Rus people.

---

I guess I don't know about the Devil Hating Latin?

I would assume it means little to nothing just like it means little to nothing to even most Catholics that don't use it.

Cyril and Methodius bringing a written language and the Gospel to the Slavic people are one of the most amazing accomplishments of the Church and really draws a sharp contrast to the RCC in how we operate.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

---

Daniel chapter 2. The small stone destroying the empires, and then growing into a mountain that will last forever. Rome was destroyed and replaced by Christianity, as was prophesized by Daniel. There are some pretty good video that can explain it in way more depth than my brief summary.

The focus on Latin was twofold:

1. To preserve the Liturgy. As language changes, old words can take on new meanings, and freezing the language was useful in making sure there were no translation issues. Even with all of the care in translating the Mass into local languages in the 1970s there were still revisions that needed to be made to more accurately reflect the age old liturgy. And that's in modern times, with modern communication, so that checking those translations is relatively easy, compared to what it would have been like from 300-1900. Leaving it in Latin for all those centuries kept the Church from having to deal with those issues.

2. Unity. At a time where there was fracturing of the empire into a bajillion different regions, each developing their own languages over time, the idea of keeping the Liturgy in Latin was a symbol of Catholic unity across borders. Although the Church did find it prudent for homilies to be given in the native language of the area in the 800s.

Latin was never seen as a sacred language. We know that because the West never told Eastern Churches to switch to Latin, although the patriarch of Constantinople later tried to enforce Greek upon Latin speakers in his area, leading to the 1054 schism

TSJ said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

---

The way Church history and Catholic apologetics address this usually comes down to separating the pagan political empire from the Church itself. You have to separate the pagan empire from the Church that grew inside it.

For the RCC Latin provides consistency and control.

As an Orthodox we don't agree with Latin (Gospels were entirely Greek) or the need to exercise singular control over everyone through one central authority.

RCC believe in Rome/Pope. Orthodox believe in the local Church and wherever the Eucharist and Bishops are. Language doesn't matter.

The Roman Empire was seen as civilizing and advancing the world. Christianity obviously wanted to coop that.

---

It's straying off topic, but the whole "The Devil hates Latin" thing doesn't make sense when we celebrate Sts Cyril and Methodius for creating Slavonic to bring the gospel to the Rus people.

---

That is a personal belief of certain individuals, and not a stance the Church has even considered weighing in on. Some exorcists swear that the Latin exorcism is more powerful. Others say they see no difference between Latin and the common language. They're allowed to have their own opinions on that. The Church just wants people healed.

The Banned said:

---

TSJ said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

More curious than anything, I'm sure this has some sort of apologia to it.

Rome was prophesied against, had a hand in Christ's death, and ruthlessly persecuted the early church. But yet they were/are THE "root" of all that is truth relating to the church?

Always been curious about Latin language also. Why the emphasis of Latin in other nations? Maybe I don't have a good understanding of that.

---

The way Church history and Catholic apologetics address this usually comes down to separating the pagan political empire from the Church itself. You have to separate the pagan empire from the Church that grew inside it.

For the RCC Latin provides consistency and control.

As an Orthodox we don't agree with Latin (Gospels were entirely Greek) or the need to exercise singular control over everyone through one central authority.

RCC believe in Rome/Pope. Orthodox believe in the local Church and wherever the Eucharist and Bishops are. Language doesn't matter.

The Roman Empire was seen as civilizing and advancing the world. Christianity obviously wanted to coop that.

---

It's straying off topic, but the whole "The Devil hates Latin" thing doesn't make sense when we celebrate Sts Cyril and Methodius for creating Slavonic to bring the gospel to the Rus people.

---

That is a personal belief of certain individuals, and not a stance the Church has even considered weighing in on. Some exorcists swear that the Latin exorcism is more powerful. Others say they see no difference between Latin and the common language. They're allowed to have their own opinions on that. The Church just wants people healed.

---

As a Christian, I obviously believe in exorcisms as Christ performed them along with the Apostles.

I think this is a hugely Roman Catholic fascination as far as I can tell.

I suppose I just tend to be very skeptical of people. Honestly, the biggest reason that I'm not Protestant any more is that they seem to be too led by individual people movements.

I always have the mentality that potentially we're in a different epoch, and that potentially these things are not as apparent to us today or occur with less frequency now.

Any one with good resources out thoughts on this?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian, I obviously believe in exorcisms as Christ performed them along with the Apostles.

I think this is a hugely Roman Catholic fascination as far as I can tell.

I suppose I just tend to be very skeptical of people. Honestly, the biggest reason that I'm not Protestant any more is that they seem to be too led by individual people movements.

I always have the mentality that potentially we're in a different epoch, and that potentially these things are not as apparent to us today or occur with less frequency now.

Any one with good resources out thoughts on this?

---

Idk what you mean by "catholic fascination". There have always been exorcisms. Demons still possess people. The vast majority of exorcists never tell anyone that they are the diocesan exorcist precisely because they want to stay under the radar.

I think it's mostly a Hollywood craze leading to "fascination" in the general populace. Most of the exorcists just keep their head down and go to work.

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

As a Christian, I obviously believe in exorcisms as Christ performed them along with the Apostles.

I think this is a hugely Roman Catholic fascination as far as I can tell.

I suppose I just tend to be very skeptical of people. Honestly, the biggest reason that I'm not Protestant any more is that they seem to be too led by individual people movements.

I always have the mentality that potentially we're in a different epoch, and that potentially these things are not as apparent to us today or occur with less frequency now.

Any one with good resources out thoughts on this?

---

Idk what you mean by "catholic fascination". There have always been exorcisms. Demons still possess people. The vast majority of exorcists never tell anyone that they are the diocesan exorcist precisely because they want to stay under the radar.

I think it's mostly a Hollywood craze leading to "fascination" in the general populace. Most of the exorcists just keep their head down and go to work.

---

I'll put it this way. As far as I know none of the orthodox churches have exorcism departments, and people who are in charge of that type of thing.

I don't know of any orthodox priest, who have performed an exorcism. They've kind of gone and done prayers and House blessings, etc. but I don't know anybody who has the ritual tendencies.

I fully understand and acknowledge I might just be doing some Hollywood stuff here and that's where I'm getting all my information from.