History is always an ally of the Catholic Church.
Burn of the Day
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
I always find it interesting that the Protestant revolutionaries pointed to the rabbis in the first century as putting together the “proper” Hebrew canon (if such an event took place) when that move was meant to stigmatize the use of the Septuagint by both diaspora Jews and nascent Christians alike.
It is interesting to note that at least since the holidays Protestantism has been going on the offensive at Twitter / X, and getting its proverbial hind quarters handed to it. Also, the Twitter / X feed for @5Solas2 whom @MrCasey is debunking in Donald’s post has apparently disappeared. BTW, I highly recommended following Mr. Casey here:
https://x.com/MrCasey62
He is a very good apologist, and has a patience and a stamina that I sadly lack. He is willing to repeat over and over again the same truths to the incessant lies that Protestants seem to always make about us Catholics: idolatry, Mary worship, works-based salvation, etc. And the one thing that unites the often disparate Protestant denominations, Calvinist and Arminian, is their hatred of the Catholic Church.
Now that said, certainly not all Protestants are like that. Some are decent, well-meaning people. But the loud-mouth ones on Twitter / X seem inspired by their singular hatred of all things Catholic. One can never have dialogue with those people. Thus, Mr. Casey’s work in always debunking their lies and putting them in their rightful place is so valuable.
Ultimately the authority question cannot be gotten around. I think some Protestants try to get around it (for the NT at least) in terms of building up layers of unanimity in the early church, I suppose by trying to extract a NT by osmosis rather than any authoritative determination on the part of the Church.
Which makes sense I guess, because once one accepts the authority of the Church to determine the canon, either the protest no longer makes any sense, or one has to admit that the Church got it right about what one considers to be the most important thing (the Bible), but then assert it *also* got it absolutely wrong on things like justification, sacraments, etc. Of course, a similar dynamic exists in terms of Christology, although in my brief time on X I have discovered a shocking amount of Nestorianism, so perhaps the commonality of Christology and Trinitarian theology is more apparent than actual.
I would also say that the claim by Mr. 5 Solas is just false on its face, as even Protestant history will attest. Almost all Protestant Bibles included what they would eventually term the “Apocrypha” in the back of the Bible, and this happened well into the 19th century.
To be sure, they may not have placed them on the same canonical level (but even this is not universal), but it is at the very least an *odd thing* to do if the Catholic Church- which one one is protesting- added them precisely to advance doctrines one is opposed to.
One more note: the eventual removal of the “Apocrypha” from Bibles was largely a decision of Bible societies and publishers, which is yet another form of “authority” that the Protestant is forced to accept if one is to conclude the “Apocrypha” doesn’t belong in the Bible, even in an attenuated or non-canonical form.
Reminder that Luther himself considered removing Hebrews, Jude, Revelation and especially the epistle of James from the Bible (though to be fair, he never committed to it.)
The real lightbulb moment for myself was realizing that the so called “Hebrew Bible” that the protestants refer to is the Masoretic Text, which can only be dated back to the 9th century AD, while the Septuagint dates back to the 3rd century BC. So the canon for the Old Testament that we Catholics use is the only one that can credibly be said to be used by Jews in the time of Christ.
Martin Luther wished to start his own brand. To differentiate he attacked the doctrine of Purgatory. With Purgatory gone, indulgences became a valid target. So he removed those scriptures that supported Purgatory. It’s as simple and blatant as that. His 95 theses have a great focus on attacking Purgatory.
I’ve also been asked by protestants why the Catholic Church changed the 10 commandments … Another Martin Luther innovation.
If only *Protestants* were the main ones attacking Catholicism these days.
Most of the attackers to worry about draw a paycheck from the collection plate.
The trait they share with Luther is the idea that their clever innovations are indispensable.
Warren Carroll’s six volume series History of Christendom is amazing. Everyone should read it. I realized I needed an antidote to years and years and of anti Catholic education. These books will put a LOT of arrows into your quiver.
I once heard a question put to a prominent Protestant ..”Did the Apostles teach Sola Scriptural?”. No answer was given.
Dr. Brant Pitre has a presentation covering the origins of the Bible. It is for sale on the Catholic Productions website titled: “The Origin of the Bible: Human Invention or Divine Intervention?”. It has a free downloadable outline in PDF format on the website. He says that the Jewish Canon was still being debated in the 4-5th Centuries A.D. long after the Church and Judaism had parted ways.
There are three videos on YouTube giving excerpts of this presentation:
*
The Origin of the Bible Preview, part 1, by Dr. Brant Pitre:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k0UV2Zi5X0
*
The Origin of the Bible Preview, part 2, by Dr. Brant Pitre:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4I8vOjBJ78
*
The Origin of the Bible (Intro):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgonc5Jbacc