Peace be with you!
Here’s a link to the canons of the Council of Carthage in AD 419. Scroll down to Canon XXIV, where the canonical books of the Bible are listed.Peace be with you!
Actually, the Canon of Scripture was declared at the council of Rome in 382 and again at the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. You can check the canons of those councils if you like.
I don’t get why Protestants always–and I do mean ALWAYS–claim that the Church “added” the Deuterocanonicals to the Bible at Trent. I don’t know who first came up with that claim, but it is completely false. What Trent did was not to create a canon of Scripture; what Trent did was to RE-AFFIRM the SAME canon of Scripture in the face of NEW OPPOSITION from Protestants. Trent simply said “These books have always been part of Scripture and the issue is not open to debate”. That’s what happened at Trent.
I think that the Bible was intended for people to read (afterall, Paul does say that all Scripture is beneficial to read), but not to INTERPRET privately. That is what the Church is for. One has only to look at the, what, 35,000 Protestant denominations to see that clearly that is NOT what Christ intended. But I guess sola scriptura is the way to go…
In Christ,
Rand
Just to clarify what I meant.
Sorry, forgot the “not”. Hey, that rhymes!
I don’t see any problem with privately reading the Bible as long we don’t make our own personal judgments regarding faith or morality based on what we just think it is saying to us. Only the Holy Mother Church can make those judgments.
I had a few questions regarding this.Peace be with you!
Actually, the Canon of Scripture was declared at the council of Rome in 382 and again at the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. You can check the canons of those councils if you like.
I don’t get why Protestants always–and I do mean ALWAYS–claim that the Church “added” the Deuterocanonicals to the Bible at Trent. I don’t know who first came up with that claim, but it is completely false. What Trent did was not to create a canon of Scripture; what Trent did was to RE-AFFIRM the SAME canon of Scripture in the face of NEW OPPOSITION from Protestants. Trent simply said “These books have always been part of Scripture and the issue is not open to debate”. That’s what happened at Trent.
I think that the Bible was intended for people to read (afterall, Paul does say that all Scripture is beneficial to read), but not to INTERPRET privately. That is what the Church is for. One has only to look at the, what, 35,000 Protestant denominations to see that clearly that is NOT what Christ intended. But I guess sola scriptura is the way to go…
In Christ,
Rand
In Christ,
Rand
I don’t really see how this is an advantage as you’re still on your hook to correctly read, interpret, and apply the teachings of Mother Church. All this construct does is to abstract the problem out one layer while encapsulating the decrees in oblique terminology.
The Jewish canon was neither agreed upon nor closed at the time of Christ. Some say that technically, the canon is still not closed.
You’ll find that passage right next to the one on the ethics of fetal stem-cell research. The answer to your question arises from Jesus’ positive statements, not on a specific denial. He stated that he would build “my church” – not churches, not denominations, not sects: “I will build my church.” In John 10 he states, “there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” And in John 17 he prays: "Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one . . . that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. . . . The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.
There are very few passages in Scripture which the Church demands be interpreted in a specific way. Catholics are required to believe that God created the world. We are not told that we must believe it happened in 6 24-hour days.
Well, that’s your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. But the fact is for me, it was only by reading Sacred Scripture with the guidance of the Catholic Church that I was able to turn away from being a self-destructive atheist. If I had read the Bible the way protestants do, I would have probably been able to justify a lot of my behavior and still be very lost. I have protestant family members who are perfect examples of this. If I had never embraced the Bride of Christ, I shutter to think of what I would be today.
I can make the same claim regarding my Catholilc relatives, some of whom although “born and raised in the Church” have professed a disbelief of Purgatory and a belief in reincarnation.
Where is this list?
What does that have to do with the teaching of the Catholic Church or with the canon of Scripture.
If Trent, Rome, Carthage (twice), and other councils have ‘defined’ (Infallibly, in the case of Trent) the Canon, in what way do “some” say that it is not closed? That would seem to be in opposition to Trent, at least.
Sorry if I did not make it clear that I was referring to Jews and the Jewish canon.
Insofar as Christians share common belief, we are kinda-sorta “one.” But just as Jesus had a physical body when he walked on earth among us as a man, Catholics believe that his Church also has a recognizable, physical Body today.
Ah, yes. But in the Catholic Church, we know that these people are not believing or living THE faith. In fact, if they were Methodists, they wouldn’t be either. That is why doctrine matters. Some Joe Sixpack nattering about reincarnation who comes to East Jesus Gospel Chapel on Sundays is no more professing Christianity than he would be if he were Catholic. Stuff like this is not a denominational issue. I don’t know why you brought it up.
The canon was not “redefined” (ie changed) but “reaffirmed”.
No. You are trying to build an edifice on very shaky ground. Councils reaffirmed the 382 Canon, not because they distrusted the Pope, but because this was an important issue, and Councils could be used to spread the teaching very widely as the delegates went home to their provinces.
You are confusing the old and new covenants. The old covenant was a covenant of the Law, of a written book. The New Covenant is not a covenant of Law, but is based instead on a living CHURCH. This church is one mysticl body, in which unity, not division, is paramount.
The catholic position on predestination is set out in the Canons of Justification at the Council of Trent,
Then your relatives are at least second-degree heretics. How is that the Church’s fault? My relatives are doing things that are fully permitted by their churches. Not even close to the same my friend.
Actually, this is not a problem. The Church, as a living body with a teaching magisterium, can explain its own documents and proclaim its own teachings. People can teach. Books can’t. The bible, as a book, is an inanimate object, unable to explain itself.
This is a fallacious argument. The Jews did NOT have a canon. In fact, there was an ATTEMPT for Jews to form a canon in 90 AD, in what we refer to as the Council of Jamnia. This was obviously after the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, anything established by Jewish authorities at this time would have no authority over any Christian. Or let me rephrase that…SHOULD have no authority over any Christian.
I believe in Purgatory too. That kinda goes along with being Catholic. The other ones are contrary to Catholic teaching. Thus, the distinction becomes, there is no way to determine who is “orthodox” as a Protestant, because everyone appeals to the same “source of truth”. With Catholics, we can make that determination by the set doctrine of the Church. When one departs from that teaching, they have departed from orthodoxy into heresy.
