One Question Catholics CAN’T Answer
Cleave to Antiquity | 31 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_RovWtvru4
1:48 keep us ... keep us ... stuttering?
Aren't you violating Matthew 6:7?
5:50 Two types of councils are binding on the entire Church.
1) Ecumenical or general councils.
2) Regional or particular councils if they are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff.
Into the latter category you find basically the Councils of Toledo and Orange, and, pretty probably the council of Rome as well.
How it works? As soon as the bishops have signed the council acts, it becomes, indeed, binding on the region. Like Tours 813, as soon as the bishops signed the act, every priest on every Lord's Day and Major Feast was obliged to say first the Gospel in the Latin they had learned the older pronunciation of from Alcuin, and then to give a paraphrase or explanation either in the popular Latin or citing the council, because that's what Alcuin didn't consider Latin "lingua romana rustica" or in the teutonic language, both of which were apparently back then spoken in Tours, depending on the audience.
This is true for the councils of Orange and Toledo as well. However, one step further comes in. A Pope of Old Rome takes interest and approves it. Like Toledo I on the authority of Pope Leo I was sent to Baetica, which hadn't participated, if I recall correctly. This is a big deal, since Toledo I includes a decision on a creed (not the liturgic one from Nicaea) which includes (for repenting Priscillianists) the filioque.
8:44 Thanks for the link* about Council of Rome:
but also if there are councils hitherto held by the holy fathers of lesser authority than those four, we have decreed [that] they must be both kept and received. Here added below is on the works of the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church.
Likewise the works of blessed Caecilius Cyprian the martyr and Bishop of Carthage;
likewise the works of blessed Gregory Nanzanensis the bishop;
likewise the works of blessed Basil Bishop of Cappadocia;
likewise the works of blessed John Bishop of Constantinople;
likewise the works of blessed Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria;
likewise the works of blessed Cyril Bishop of Alexandria;
likewise the works of blessed Bishop Hilary of Poitiers;
likewise the works of blessed Ambrosius Bishop of Milan;
likewise the works of blessed Augustine Bishop of Hippo;
likewise the works of blessed Jerome the priest;
likewise the works of blessed Prosper a most religious man;
Now, as you said, Jerome the priest did not opine that the books not found in Hebrew were canonic. However, he's not the sole man to have his works approved, globally, and this global approval doesn't make any of these infallible, and the fact is other men here, notably St. Augustine, did not share the opinion of Jerome on the LXX, and presumably not on these books. In one place Jerome also mentions he would have preferred not to translate them from Greek, but he bowed down to bishops.
You are arguing as if Jerome was sole authority received at this council and that infallibly.
But one more thing. Under Damasus, some of these men were still alive. They would typically not be called "blessed" during their lifetime.
I think Ernst von Dobschütz may have unwittingly have included a scholion into the text, from the manuscript he had, or even that he actually marked it as a scholion, since the letters are here smaller. So, I would even argue it's at least possible that this passage is actually not something decided under Pope Damasus.
Plus, above it we have:
HERE BEGINS THE DECRETAL 'ON BOOKS TO BE RECEIVED AND NOT TO BE RECEIVED' WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY POPE GELASIUS AND SEVENTY MOST ERUDITE BISHOPS AT THE APOSTOLIC SEAT IN THE CITY OF ROME
In other words, this is a council from the 490's which is not concerned with the Bible canon, not the council of Rome from 382, for which the text was apparently added as intro to the longer version of the Gelasian text.
So, the one misunderstanding the Council of Rome is arguably you.
9:22 "You can be correct without being infallible."
Can you be correct and binding on the whole Church without being infallible?
The reason for St. Robert Bellarmine's adjudging infallibility to the Pope is:
1) he is the supreme judge of all the Church, which is bound to obey him
2) if he could be wrong in something so stated as to bind the Church, the Church would be bound to error or evil, which is absurd
3) therefore he cannot be wrong in those decisions, and that is all that infallible means.
Note, before you say "so Pope Francis is infallible?" St. Robert Bellarmine also said sth about a heretic not being able to be Pope. What would happen if a Pope fell into heresy after election was not canonically decided, St. Robert opined a) this could probably not happen, but b) if it happened he would automatically lose office on starting to preach heresy. For someone being ineligible by being heretic prior to (and in the moment of) being apparently elected, it was canonically decided (Cum ex apostolatus officio) that the election would be null and void, and everyone would lose any even apparent duty of obedience as soon as it was found out.
9:43 St. Jerome wrote the Vulgate after** the council of Rome, which was therefore not in a position to affirm or deny his remark.
Going on his opinion for the intent is like going in Benjamin Franklin's personal opinion instead of going to the Founding Father's actual text.
10:04 1) Cajetan and Glossa Ordinaria author opined that St. Jerome was correct about how to interpret the Council of Rome, even if apparently Jerome wasn't at this point mentioning the council, he could even have forgotten about it;
2) they are trumped by the Council of Trent.
Please note here that for whatever book is actually canonic, the first infallible decision was local by the Church in recognising it as inspired, so St. Timothy infallibly was able to say that Ephesians, I Timothy, II Timothy and the Johannine corpus were canonic, and so on for other books.
Later on these separate acts of infallible canonisation, not all of which had been received by all, were resumed as conjointly canonic, at Rome. The infallibility extends certainly to the books being canonic, as that was decided, but not to the non-inclusion of for instance Henoch or Psalm 151 or III Maccabees, this same being true for Trent as well. However, the distance between Beroea and Saloniki being 45 miles or 73 km, the canon of Trent is probably complete.
3) No one in his right mind said one could not deduct historical facts from II Maccabees, one of which is that the High Priest believed in a kind of Purgatory and another being that he believed in the intercession of Jeremias. Since these beliefs existed before Jesus' time and He didn't argue against them, this is in itself confirmation at least probable, and hence the position of the Church on these matters is confirmation sufficient and certain.
the position that 10:50 you currently hold is not the position 10:53 that the early church held
Traditional does not simply mean ancient. It means preserved since ancient times (at least somewhere in the Church, like Immaculate Conception for a long time in the East).
It's opposed to modern and to restored after a clear break.
According to Matthew 28:16—20, it's actually impossible to have a break in an important doctrine. Whether you later restore it or not.
as a matter of fact the Eastern 11:02 Orthodox actually had a closed Cannon by 11:05 Trullo
Is your source a reddit thread with a purported citation from canon 85?***
11:34 What is your position on Constantinople IV?
Both 869 (to 870?) and 879 (to 880) have been affirmed as being that council.
Whichever is true, Popes have backpaddled on the issue.
If 869 is the council, then 879 is just an appendix reconciling Photius (who therefore died in the Catholic Church, disappearing somewhere, my fav theory is he retired to an Anglo Saxon monastery and wrote Beowulf).
If 879 is the council, that means, and this is the EO position, that the later Pope revoked 869.
But if 869 is the council and 879 isn't, that could well imply that 879 was first promoted and then demoted.
So, a Pope can backpaddle on whether a given council is ecumenic. Medieval Reform councils at one point were not considered as ecumenical. In Florence, I think many on both sides saw this as the first council since Nicaea II or possibly Constantinople IV that was ecumenical.
A council that has found acceptance within the whole Church for centuries can however not be demoted this way.
Trullo ... it was never fully applied in the West, according to Craig Truglia.° He explains this by Economia, and bemoans that Economia disappeared from the Western Church. It didn't, it just changed names to Dispansatio. Now Trullo affirms Economia (aka Dispensatio) so even if it were objectively a valid general council and a future Pope or a present one should reaffirm it, it wouldn't make the Western Church a transgressor.
* https://tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
** https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata
Im Auftrag des Papstes Damasus begann dessen Vertrauter Hieronymus nach 382 eine Revision der lateinischen Übersetzungen der Evangelien. Dabei bearbeitete er in geringerem Umfang auch die übrigen Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Nach dem Tod des Papstes 384 siedelte Hieronymus nach Bethlehem über und wandte sich der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments zu. Anfangs übersetzte Hieronymus einige alttestamentliche Bücher aus der griechischen Septuaginta: den Septuaginta-Psalter, das Buch Hiob, die Sprichwörter, das Hohelied, das Buch Kohelet sowie das erste und zweite Buch der Chronik. Dem ließ er ab 393 eine Übersetzung des gesamten Alten Testamentes folgen, laut eigenen Angaben „nach dem Hebräischen“ (iuxta Hebraeos), vermutlich aber auch auf Basis der von Origenes aufbereiteten Hexapla-Ausgabe,[2] die neben der griechischen Septuaginta-Version und anderen griechischen Übersetzungen auch den hebräischen Text in griechischer Transkription enthielt. Die neuere Forschung schätzt inzwischen die hebräische Sprachkompetenz des Hieronymus wieder höher ein.[3]
*** This thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/12rv9rh/council_of_trullos_canon_list/?rdt=49460
is on this point not confirmed when searching canon 85 here:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
° https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/04/21/did-rome-accept-the-canons-of-trullo/
No comments:
Post a Comment