Athanasius 39th Festal Letter ... Question
- Thread starter Jaguar1
- Start date
I had to look this up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter
Short answer, I do not know, but venerable as he was, St Athanasius did not have the final say on what books would be included in the Bible and which ones would not, the Church did. The synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century, and later the council of Florence, established the canon, which was confirmed by the council of Trent in 1546. Trent only ratified that which was decided far earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_letter
Short answer, I do not know, but venerable as he was, St Athanasius did not have the final say on what books would be included in the Bible and which ones would not, the Church did. The synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century, and later the council of Florence, established the canon, which was confirmed by the council of Trent in 1546. Trent only ratified that which was decided far earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent
Some more thoughts on the matter, I am not sure that the typical Protestant (if one can speak of such a person) gives any thought to the question of "who decided what books would, and would not, be part of the Bible?". The Old Testament could be thought of as having come from the Jews, and that Christianity just took what was already in place (there would be some quibbling over the deuterocanonicals, or what they call the "apocrypha"), but as to the New Testament, there were all kinds of books floating around here and there, some "made the cut", some didn't. Who made that call, and on what authority?
Even if they were to say "well, the early Church decided that", the question then would be "and where does that same authority reside today, and if there is no such authority, when did it cease to exist?". I have found that many Protestant histories of the Church just more or less glide right over the particulars of how the early Church was organized and where authority resided.
This is probably an over-simplification, but Christians who look to the entire 2000-year history of the Church, without just sliding past the thousand-odd years from the time of Constantine to the various reformations, generally acknowledge that there was an unbroken succession of bishops, as well as a liturgy that consisted of both Scripture and the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Catholics and Orthodox are of one voice on this, and Anglicans, though they take issue with Rome's judgment on their orders, affirm the same historicity that Catholics and Orthodox do.
Even if they were to say "well, the early Church decided that", the question then would be "and where does that same authority reside today, and if there is no such authority, when did it cease to exist?". I have found that many Protestant histories of the Church just more or less glide right over the particulars of how the early Church was organized and where authority resided.
This is probably an over-simplification, but Christians who look to the entire 2000-year history of the Church, without just sliding past the thousand-odd years from the time of Constantine to the various reformations, generally acknowledge that there was an unbroken succession of bishops, as well as a liturgy that consisted of both Scripture and the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Catholics and Orthodox are of one voice on this, and Anglicans, though they take issue with Rome's judgment on their orders, affirm the same historicity that Catholics and Orthodox do.
po18guy
Well-known member
Why did Augustin of Hippo preach that Mary conceived as a virgin and remained a virgin thereafter?
(Sermon 231, section 2, paragraph 3)
What else would he have taught? Both are the perennial teaching of the Church.
I just took the question at face value.
I invite the OP to return with more content, if desired.
Yes, I posted & had to bail, to the emergency room. Severe chest pains will often cause that.
My reason for the original post was that I was asked the question by a Protestant gentleman. I didn't have a response and asked for help.
Prayers for your good health. Stay well.
Thank you. God Bless.
po18guy
Well-known member
Sorry about that! Well, tell him that (insert name) was neither pope nor council. Protestants are generally "cult of personality" types, in that they hang their eternity on one man's theology. Thus, any Catholic who dissented is proof for them that the Catholic church is (insert slur). He is justifying not being Catholic.
No, problem & thanks for the info. This guy does nothing but falsify the Church. The last couple of weeks have been an attempt to minimize our Blessed Mother and hurt Catholics. It's all about the same things. He's digging deeper into the Protestant playbook, now.
He is an ex-Catholic with a vendetta, so maybe from a bad experience.
Anyway, I know you would never have made that statement had you known about my medical problem.
He is an ex-Catholic with a vendetta, so maybe from a bad experience.
Anyway, I know you would never have made that statement had you known about my medical problem.