In his response to my article about the woman in Revelations 12, Atty. Marwil Llasos wrote his response in a recent article. I will write a counterargument over the weekend but I'd like to show you some funny stuffs again with regards to their thoughts about the Scriptures. So when was the canon of Scriptures finally settled? Let the infallible church of Rome tell you.
According to Atty. Llasos:
In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.
I recall a response from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Palad:
Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled”, the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.
The above is what Mr. Palad answered when the Catholic Encyclopedia gave this statement:
"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent ...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).”
So what we have here is an obvious contradiction. For Atty. Llasos he stated that the canon was "finally settled" in 382AD while his comrade Mr. Palad agrees that the final form was made at Trent of the 16th century. Gentlemen, what's it gonna be?
I could speculate at least one way how Atty. Llasos would respond:
"It's very clear that Bro. Caloy is speaking about having no anathema in the 4th century for those who disagree with the canon back then. Both 4th and 16th century canon have the same books and therefore it was final back then."
I think the phrase, the Canon technically remained open, from Mr. Palad is far different than the phrase, finally settled, from Atty. Llasos. If it was technically remained open, then common sense will tell you that it is not finally settled.
What about the so-called similarity of the books between 4th and 16th century canons? My friends, the 4th century canon was based on the Septuagint, Trent has a different basis (Jerome's Vulgate). Between these centuries there is one book present in the Septuagint that was included in the 4th century, Esdras 1. Esdras 1 of the Septuagint is Esdras 3 in Trent. Esdras 1 of the 4th century canon was not recognized in Trent; another way of saying it Esdras 3 of Trent was not recognized in Trent. So between these two periods, they differ by one book. Evangelical apologists David King and William Webster have pointed that out but no Roman Catholic apologist has ever answered that with finality up to this time.
According to Atty. Llasos:
In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.
I recall a response from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Palad:
Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled”, the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.
The above is what Mr. Palad answered when the Catholic Encyclopedia gave this statement:
"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent ...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).”
So what we have here is an obvious contradiction. For Atty. Llasos he stated that the canon was "finally settled" in 382AD while his comrade Mr. Palad agrees that the final form was made at Trent of the 16th century. Gentlemen, what's it gonna be?
I could speculate at least one way how Atty. Llasos would respond:
"It's very clear that Bro. Caloy is speaking about having no anathema in the 4th century for those who disagree with the canon back then. Both 4th and 16th century canon have the same books and therefore it was final back then."
I think the phrase, the Canon technically remained open, from Mr. Palad is far different than the phrase, finally settled, from Atty. Llasos. If it was technically remained open, then common sense will tell you that it is not finally settled.
What about the so-called similarity of the books between 4th and 16th century canons? My friends, the 4th century canon was based on the Septuagint, Trent has a different basis (Jerome's Vulgate). Between these centuries there is one book present in the Septuagint that was included in the 4th century, Esdras 1. Esdras 1 of the Septuagint is Esdras 3 in Trent. Esdras 1 of the 4th century canon was not recognized in Trent; another way of saying it Esdras 3 of Trent was not recognized in Trent. So between these two periods, they differ by one book. Evangelical apologists David King and William Webster have pointed that out but no Roman Catholic apologist has ever answered that with finality up to this time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment