deuterocanonicals

[mobile21]

But despite Trent and previous Catholic Church councils which affirmed that those books which were named were in fact 'canon' and 'inspired'...the Catholic Church never declared authoritatively nor conclusively that these were the ONLY Books that were inspired or would ever be considered 'canon'.

The official position of the Catholic Church is that 'canon' is 'open' and subject to change.

That is not true.

In 1562 the Council of Trent issued the dogmatic definition about the Canon, meaning that the issue of the Canon is closed now, however that doesn't mean that the resolutions of 393 and 397 about the Canon were not binding, what it means is that the defined Canon is irrevocable now.

An example of this would be what's going on now with the "gay marriage" thing right now, even before the DOMA, it was legally valid the definition about marriage being between one man and one woman only but the DOMA made it "official" for all the States and a constitutional amendment would make it irrevocable.

[homebild]

Mobile stated: "That is not true.

In 1562 the Council of Trent issued the dogmatic definition about the Canon, meaning that the issue of the Canon is closed now, however that doesn't mean that the resolutions of 393 and 397 about the Canon were not binding, what it means is that the defined Canon is irrevocable now."

Mobile, it is really tedious and tiresome trying to discuss this with you since it is clear you have no idea even what the official standing and teaching of the Church is concerning canonicity or how it came about.

I quote from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary which is an imprimatured book of the Roman Catholic Church:

(66:90) "The Finality of the Council of Trent" This council was firm about which books, along with their parts, should be accepted as canonical and inspired. BUT TRENT DID NOT SAY THAT THESE WERE THE ONLY INSPIRED BOOKS, AND THE QUESTION IS SOMETIMES RAISED WHETHER SOME LOST BOOKS MAY HAVE BEEN INSPIRED" . The commentary continues by acknowledging the difficulty there would be establishing, for example, a lost Pauline epistle, as canonical and for all intents and purposes recognizes that it is quite unlikley, but the commentary DOES ASSERT, that the Roman Catholic Church has never declared Canon 'closed' and the discovery of known, yet lost, apostolic writings might in fact be introduced into the Canon.

If you seriously examine the issues of canonicity and inspiriation of the texts and just what the Church does say and teach, you will find that it flies in direct opposition to what you have claimed. But since it is obvious you have not seriously examined the issue and are actually offering arguments which are in direct conflict with Rome's position, there is no sense further discussing it with you.

Even the Church acknowledges 'problems' with the current canon since the councils were not fully equipped nor fully comprehensive in their scope of investigation. The Church also acknowledges that those who voted at the councils were not in a unanimous consensus and also acknowledges that other canons that pre-date Trent and Carthage bear all the criteria for acceptance that Rome used to establish canonicity yet are not acknowledge by the Church to this day.

Rome has NEVER claimed that Scripture or canon was 'closed'.

That canon is 'closed' is a completely Protestant notion and one against which, the Church acted upon at Trent to reiterate its position of 'openess' yet affirmation.

As to your off tangent remarks about DOMA or whatever, I have no clue where you are going with or what relevance it bears to canonicity so I have no comment.

[mobile21]

Mobile stated: "That is not true.

In 1562 the Council of Trent issued the dogmatic definition about the Canon, meaning that the issue of the Canon is closed now, however that doesn't mean that the resolutions of 393 and 397 about the Canon were not binding, what it means is that the defined Canon is irrevocable now."

Mobile, it is really tedious and tiresome trying to discuss this with you since it is clear you have no idea even what the official standing and teaching of the Church is concerning canonicity or how it came about.

I quote from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary which is an imprimatured book of the Roman Catholic Church:

(66:90) "The Finality of the Council of Trent" This council was firm about which books, along with their parts, should be accepted as canonical and inspired. BUT TRENT DID NOT SAY THAT THESE WERE THE ONLY INSPIRED BOOKS, AND THE QUESTION IS SOMETIMES RAISED WHETHER SOME LOST BOOKS MAY HAVE BEEN INSPIRED" . The commentary continues by acknowledging the difficulty there would be establishing, for example, a lost Pauline epistle, as canonical and for all intents and purposes recognizes that it is quite unlikley, but the commentary DOES ASSERT, that the Roman Catholic Church has never declared Canon 'closed' and the discovery of known, yet lost, apostolic writings might in fact be introduced into the Canon.

If you seriously examine the issues of canonicity and inspiriation of the texts and just what the Church does say and teach, you will find that it flies in direct opposition to what you have claimed. But since it is obvious you have not seriously examined the issue and are actually offering arguments which are in direct conflict with Rome's position, there is no sense further discussing it with you.

Even the Church acknowledges 'problems' with the current canon since the councils were not fully equipped nor fully comprehensive in their scope of investigation. The Church also acknowledges that those who voted at the councils were not in a unanimous consensus and also acknowledges that other canons that pre-date Trent and Carthage bear all the criteria for acceptance that Rome used to establish canonicity yet are not acknowledge by the Church to this day.

Rome has NEVER claimed that Scripture or canon was 'closed'.

That canon is 'closed' is a completely Protestant notion and one against which, the Church acted upon at Trent to reiterate its position of 'openess' yet affirmation.

As to your off tangent remarks about DOMA or whatever, I have no clue where you are going with or what relevance it bears to canonicity so I have no comment.

Look, I don't know what proof you want in order to believe that there is such dogmatic definition.

What about the catholic encyclopedia New Advent????? (probably one of the biggest, most complete catholic encyclopedias).

Here's a link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Bottomline is that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in "hidden documents" because it has the most complete archive of all the original gospels and that the New Testament is indeed closed.

That's the only catholic belief.

[homebild]

Mobile,

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance and complete failure to understand just what your very own Church says and teaches.

I will say this for you, however. You are the PERFECT example why the Church does not allow just anyone to teach, but only qualified priests and teachers. Your gross incompetance in handling this issue is adequate support for the Church' wise position.

I will converse with you no further.

[Guest shadow2b]

-I will converse with you no further.

-Another WISE decision--- :x:

[mobile21]

Mobile,

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance and complete failure to understand just what your very own Church says and teaches.

I will say this for you, however. You are the PERFECT example why the Church does not allow just anyone to teach, but only qualified priests and teachers. Your gross incompetance in handling this issue is adequate support for the Church' wise position.

I will converse with you no further.

You think I don't know what you are trying to say despite the evidence? ok, let me prove it to you I do: You are trying to say that your "non-catholic christian faith" has the "definitive Gospel" while the catholic doctrine refers to the Gospel as something "not definitive" and "ever changing".

Bah!.

Too bad you are so absolutely biased you can't accept you are wrong even when I've shown conclusive proof about it.

Anyway, you can keep your "I'm the best of the creation" attitude, it won't take you very far though

[RGR]

Mobile,

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance and complete failure to understand just what your very own Church says and teaches.

I will say this for you, however. You are the PERFECT example why the Church does not allow just anyone to teach, but only qualified priests and teachers. Your gross incompetance in handling this issue is adequate support for the Church' wise position.

I will converse with you no further.

You think I don't know what you are trying to say despite the evidence? ok, let me prove it to you I do: You are trying to say that your "non-catholic christian faith" has the "definitive Gospel" while the catholic doctrine refers to the Gospel as something "not definitive" and "ever changing".

Bah!.

Too bad you are so absolutely biased you can't accept you are wrong even when I've shown conclusive proof about it.

Anyway, you can keep your "I'm the best of the creation" attitude, it won't take you very far though

I think the best advice here is :x: