Canon of Scripture, Catholic Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fredricks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fredricks

Guest
We have heard people on here contend that the Catholic church was the only CHURCH prior to 1054.
They sure seemed to disagree a lot. Why would Catholics contend that the “Church” was one until Protestants divided them?

Why did certain parts of this “Church” have a different canon?
If the “Church” had authority and Sacred Tradition on its side, why all the problems?

"[Diatessaron: c. 173, a one-volume harmony of the four Gospels, translated and compiled by Tatian the Assyrian into Syriac. In Syriac speaking churches, it effectively served as the only New Testament scripture until Paul’s Letters were added during the 3rd century. Some believe that Acts was also used in Syrian churches alongside the Diatessaron [citation needed], however, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 4.29.5 states Tatian rejected Paul’s Letters and Acts. In the 4th century, the Doctrine of Addai lists a 17 book NT canon using the Diatessaron and Acts and 15 Pauline Epistles (including 3rd Corinthians). The Diatessaron was eventually replaced in the 5th century by the Peshitta, which contains a translation of all the books of the 27-book NT except for 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation and is the Bible of the Syriac Orthodox Church where some members believe it is the original New Testament, see Aramaic primacy.

Orthodox Synod in Trullo: in 692, rejected by Pope Constantine, approved Gregory Theologus’ 22 book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation) and the Canons of the Apostles of the Apostolic Constitutions of which Canon #85 [18] is a list of the 27-book OT plus Judith, Sirach, 1-3Maccabees, Didache, 1-2Clement, and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation), and the Apostolic Constitutions which themselves were rejected because they were said to contain heretical interpolations.

Nicephorus: the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 806-815, in a Stichometria [19] appended to the end of his Chronography rejected Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Clement, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter."

Wikipedia article on the Canon
 
Let’s see – you’ve combined a compilation c. 173, a council rejected by the Pope, and the actions of the Patriarch of Jerusalem to prove some point. What point was that, exactly?
 
40.png
Fredricks:
We have heard people on here contend that the Catholic church was the only CHURCH prior to 1054.
They sure seemed to disagree a lot. Why would Catholics contend that the “Church” was one until Protestants divided them?

Why did certain parts of this “Church” have a different canon?
If the “Church” had authority and Sacred Tradition on its side, why all the problems?
Click to expand...
Those were not canons. By definition, “canon” means ecclesiastical rule or practical direction. Such a ruling or “practical direction” was not issued until the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

You may ask why such a ruling was issued so late. Initially, writings were quite dispersed geographically. It wasn’t until later that there was a body of writings to consider. Different people had their own opinions about what the canon should be, but the Church ruled infallably, and the canon was fixed. Protestants are beneficiaries of the infallability of the Church and have a New Testament that they correctly trust as the Word of God as a result of that.

But I would also respond that it wasn’t late or ill-timed. Sacred Tradtion was actually quite effecacious in preserving doctrinal orthodoxy.

petra
 
40.png
joshua_b:
Thank you…what is the point OP ?
Click to expand...
People sure are being selective.
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054. Why could they not agree? What does this say about Sacred Tradition?
 
Lets break it down
prior to 1054 (when Catholicism contends it first split)

"Many Christians have accepted and continue to accept the same 27-book NT, except for the Syriac Orthodox Church who continue to use the Peshitta and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which lists four books of Sinodos (church practices), two Books of Covenant, “Ethiopic Clement”, and “Ethiopic Didascalia” within a broader New Testament canon, although their narrow canon is the same as that of other churches; see this webpage for much more detailed information on the Ethiopian Canon) and the **Armenian Orthodox ** who include the Third Epistle to the Corinthians. The Canon of the **Tewahedo Church ** is looser than for most other traditional Christian groups. The Ethiopian “narrow” Old Testament Canon includes the books found in the Septuagint accepted by the Orthodox plus Enoch, Jubilees, 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151; but their three books of the Maccabees are quite different in content from those of the other Christian churches which include them. The order of the other books is somewhat different from other groups’, as well. This Church also has a “broader canon” that includes more books.
 
As a Protestant, I think you will find it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture when he wrote, “We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
 
The Canon set at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage are exactly the same as the Canon laid out at the Council of Trent. So, what is your excuse for not having a Bible with the same Canon? You still haven’t answered.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
People sure are being selective.
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054. Why could they not agree? What does this say about Sacred Tradition?
Click to expand...
By your logic, it says that Judaism can not possibly be a direct result of God’s Divine Revelation, and therefore Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of Judaism since Judaism would have been just a “tradition”, or if Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism, then Jesus Himself would have been nothing more than a “tradition” to overlook, since the Jewish Canon of Scripture was not uniform until 100 years after the death of Jesus at teh Council of Jamnia. Surely, if Judaism was legitimate, and not merely the result of an “empty tradition” (my words…your sentiment) then the Jews, ESPECIALLY AT LEAST BY THE TIME OF CHRIST (since he taught and knew the Scriptures better than anyone), would have had a difinitive Canon of said Scripture.

Now my question to you is, have you read the Deuterocanonical books ?
 
I found it interesting that Fredericks did not provide a hyperlink to the wikipedia sight. So, I went to see what he might be hiding:

" Early Christianity also relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125 AD)."

“Protestant Reformation: begun by Martin Luther, who made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola fide, partially because of the early debate over their inclusion), but this was not generally accepted among his followers.”

"Many Evangelical Christian groups do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be “Roman-dominated”, made their official declarations.

These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11-13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18-19) finalized the canon of the New Testament."

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon
 
40.png
joshua_b:
By your logic, it says that Judaism can not possibly be a direct result of God’s Divine Revelation, and therefore Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of Judaism since Judaism would have been just a “tradition”, or if Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism, then Jesus Himself would have been nothing more than a “tradition” to overlook, since the Jewish Canon of Scripture was not uniform until 100 years after the death of Jesus at teh Council of Jamnia. Surely, if Judaism was legitimate, and not merely the result of an “empty tradition” (my words…your sentiment) then the Jews, ESPECIALLY AT LEAST BY THE TIME OF CHRIST (since he taught and knew the Scriptures better than anyone), would have had a difinitive Canon of said Scripture.

Now my question to you is, have you read the Deuterocanonical books ?
Click to expand...
From the same site quoted by Fredericks:

“Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set.”
 
40.png
joshua_b:
By your logic, it says that Judaism can not possibly be a direct result of God’s Divine Revelation, and therefore Jesus could not have been the fulfillment of Judaism since Judaism would have been just a “tradition”, or if Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism, then Jesus Himself would have been nothing more than a “tradition” to overlook, since the Jewish Canon of Scripture was not uniform until 100 years after the death of Jesus at teh Council of Jamnia. Surely, if Judaism was legitimate, and not merely the result of an “empty tradition” (my words…your sentiment) then the Jews, ESPECIALLY AT LEAST BY THE TIME OF CHRIST (since he taught and knew the Scriptures better than anyone), would have had a difinitive Canon of said Scripture.

Now my question to you is, have you read the Deuterocanonical books ?
Click to expand...
You did not answer my questions. You question my logic but you did not answer my questions. Are we switching to the Hebrew Bible before anyone answers my questions about the NT?
If I start answering the questions about the Hebrew Bible, will I get distracted and notice no one is answering my questions?

I will answer yours though. Quite awhile ago in graduate school.
 
Ok I have to admit, that I am not entirely certain what the actual question is. All I am perceiving is an innuendo against either Apostolic Tradition as being false, or the Canon given by the Church as not being legitimate. So, in light of the fact I’m still not entirely certain what the question is, I am going to humbly make a request. Please ask me a direct question that I can provide an answer for, instead of leaving me to flounder around and filter through whatever “Orthodox councils” and whatever “canons” to try to figure out exactly what and or where the question lies.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
Ok I have to admit, that I am not entirely certain what the actual question is. All I am perceiving is an innuendo against either Apostolic Tradition as being false, or the Canon given by the Church as not being legitimate. So, in light of the fact I’m still not entirely certain what the question is, I am going to humbly make a request. Please ask me a direct question that I can provide an answer for, instead of leaving me to flounder around and filter through whatever “Orthodox councils” and whatever “canons” to try to figure out exactly what and or where the question lies.
Click to expand...
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
People sure are being selective.
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054. Why could they not agree? What does this say about Sacred Tradition?
Click to expand...
Which Church? The Catholic Church or other churches? The Catholic Church claims that it is the only one that has preserved Sacred Tradition in its fulness. We are not being selective–only staying on topic. The fact that non-Catholic churches have other canons does not undermine Sacred Tradition. If you think it does, can you explain why? Do you feel that Thomas Jefferson’s canon undermines Sacred Tradition? He wasn’t even Catholic! Neither were the others I suppose you are concerned about after the Church fixed the canon.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
Ok I have to admit, that I am not entirely certain what the actual question is.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Fredericks knows what the question is. He’s just throwing things out there and hoping something sticks.
 
40.png
petra:
Which Church? The Catholic Church or other churches? The Catholic Church claims that it is the only one that has preserved Sacred Tradition in its fulness. We are not being selective–only staying on topic. The fact that non-Catholic churches have other canons does not undermine Sacred Tradition. If you think it does, can you explain why? Do you feel that Thomas Jefferson’s canon undermines Sacred Tradition? He wasn’t even Catholic! Neither were the others I suppose you are concerned about after the Church fixed the canon.
Click to expand...
HOW can you say they were non-Catholic when you deny a split prior to 1054!!!
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054.
Click to expand...
Are we discussing the Catholic Church or not? Once the Catholic Church infallably declared the canon of scriptures, it was set. Nothing’s changed here in our world.

Now schimatic groups have decided to edit the Bible’s table of contents. But in doing so, they have abandoned the fulness of Sacred Tradition.

There’s no problem on our end.
 
40.png
petra:
Are we discussing the Catholic Church or not? Once the Catholic Church infallably declared the canon of scriptures, it was set. Nothing’s changed here in our world.

Now schimatic groups have decided to edit the Bible’s table of contents. But in doing so, they have abandoned the fulness of Sacred Tradition.

There’s no problem on our end.
Click to expand...
Petra are you not aware that different parts of what you guys claim to be a united church were using different books prior to the split???
 
40.png
Fredricks:
HOW can you say they were non-Catholic when you deny a split prior to 1054!!!
Click to expand...
I have never denied a split prior to 1054. The oriental orthodox split before then.

But, if you remember, you did say “before and after.” Are you troubled about Thomas Jefferson’s canon? Again, non-Catholic canons are no hit against Sacred Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top