Canon of Scripture, Catholic Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fredricks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Eden:
I’m still waiting for Fredericks to discuss the Protestant Council that set his church’s canon in the 3rd century and was later definitively set by the Council of Luther in the 16th century.

That didn’t happen? Hmmm… I wonder what this all means for Fredericks bible and that of his wavering brethren? :hmmm:

Sola Scriptura but which Scriptura?
Yes, and I’m wondering why Fredricks’ Bible does, in fact, contain Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation when Martin Luther wanted them removed. Surely he would know better than the apostate organization from which he was splitting. :cool:

Sola scriptura presupposes the infallability of Sacred Tradition.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Why would Catholics contend that the “Church” was one until Protestants divided them?
There is only ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and the powers of hell will never prevail against the church founded by Christ.

The Protestant “reformers” were certainly not the first heretics to separate themselves from the true church – wolves in sheep’s clothing attacked the true church from the very beginning.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Matt 7:15

Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert …
Acts 20: 28-31
 
The reasoning by Fredricks is severly flawed he shows that non-catholic approved councils have a different cannon?
So? This is only makes it more problematic for protestants who insist the canon was known outside of the authority of the catholic church, the evidence suggest that outside catholic cirlces the canon was in disupte heck even Luther had a dispute with the catholic new testament canon, The question is why do protestants agree with the catholic church canon of the new testament and not one of these non-catholic authorites whether it be Luther, the Arians or Syrian Orthodox?
Of course he is being silly when he insist that all christians were catholics prior to the Major East West Schism while this was true in the west this was not the case with Nestorians and Coptics and some other minor breaks. But in the west there was no major break till the Reformation. It is just to taxing to include this in every conversation and if this has mislead you I assure you it is not intentional. But this is what is meant and no one here would claim otherwise if you pressed them on specifics and not generaliztions common to an internet board.
 
Also, in what sense were the extra books considered “canonical?” Did these various churches demand that say, the 3rd Letter of Clement was scripture?

On that I’m just not sure. But either way, if certain churches were out of line and claiming something that a Council did not, they were wrong to do so. I think Fred is trying to make more out of common disobedience than he possibly can. It sounds like he’s saying “See! Because other people disobeyed Rome and used a different canon, Rome is wrong!” Which, of course, makes perfect sense to a Protestant mind–“I’m going to do my own thing and that makes me right.”

Whatever. I’m beginning to loathe this site.
 
40.png
petra:
Yes, and I’m wondering why Fredricks’ Bible does, in fact, contain Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation when Martin Luther wanted them removed. Surely he would know better than the apostate organization from which he was splitting. :cool:

Sola scriptura presupposes the infallability of Sacred Tradition.
I could care less about Martin Luther. Why should we?
I am not a Lutheran.
I suppose if I were Lutheran I would care but outside of that?
I have seen people use Luther before as some kind of Pope that Protestants follow.
 
40.png
SemperJase:
You clearly don’t understand history. There were undeniably many heresies and schisms throughout history. These were all minor and most of those groups died out.

Then in 1054 the split happened between east and west. That was a major split. There is really no comparison between splinter groups that happened throughout history and the major schism between east and west.

It doesn’t prove your point, only that you can’t judge history.
The different branches of Orthodoxy I mentioned have not died out.
 
The Iambic Pen:
In the early days of the Church, the churches couldn’t all have had the same canon if they had wanted to. They simply didn’t all have copies of all the books. They couldn’t just go to their local Christian book store.
lambic, you usually have very well thought out threads as you go about your search for truth. If you do not think that it is important that different parts of the Christian church had different canons throughout history fine but I have found your previous posts, which I enjoy reading, more thought out than that.
 
So you concede that Rome had teaching authority over the east
You know, it is around this time that wonder if you guys have actually read the history of Christianity.
Anyway, 10 against one, cannot answer them all. I think I will go to the library and wait for Awful on Foundations. I am only going to talk to him for awhile because he is insistent and seems reasonable.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
I could care less about Martin Luther. Why should we?
I am not a Lutheran.
I suppose if I were Lutheran I would care but outside of that?
I have seen people use Luther before as some kind of Pope that Protestants follow.
I’m just trying to ascertain where you think your New Testament came from and why you trust its books to be the Word of God. The Catholic Church has only had 1 canon, but other schismatic and non-Catholic groups have sometimes had their own. Why are you using the Catholic New Testament?
 
40.png
Fredricks:
You know, it is around this time that wonder if you guys have actually read the history of Christianity.
Anyway, 10 against one, cannot answer them all. I think I will go to the library and wait for Awful on Foundations. I am only going to talk to him for awhile because he is insistent and seems reasonable.
Actually I have read the history of Christianity, and nowhere in it was a Church that even remotely resembles what you consider to be “true Christianity” or to uphold anything other than Catholic Doctrine. I have requested repeatedly (to many here on these forums) that someone provide me evidence of any such Church, and yet for all of the claims that “history” somehow exonerates Protestant doctrine, noone has ever provided substantiation of such a claim.
 
Fredricks,
40.png
Fredricks:
Why did different parts of the “Church” use different books prior to and after 1054.
Firstly, there were other schisms before 1054. For example, there were some Catholics that rejected the Council of Ephesus and some that rejected the Council of Chalcedon.

Secondly, the canon of Scripture was not auniversalcanon until the Council of Florence. Before that time, local synods canonized the Bible. The western synods were in agreement with the canon first canonized in AD 382 by Pope Damasus. The east had no such uniform canon, however, they accepted the Catholic canon “plus” depending upon their local tradition. This was not problematic, as these Eastern Catholics were not teaching heresy based upon their “version” of the canon of Scripture.

The Council of Florence was an attempt to reunite the Eastern Churches to the Roman Catholic Church. Although the patriarch of Constantinople and others signed the agreements at the council, they were unable to get their congregations to follow them. Thus, they do not accept the authority of Florence.

Yet, one thing is noteworthy…the Protestant canon of Scripture never existed before the Reformation. They simply made it up. No canon of Christian history before the Reformation omitted, for example, the longer recession of Daniel. In fact, there doesn’t appear to be any Christian precedent to the Protestant omission of the longer Theodotion recession of the Book of Daniel. So it seems the Protestants simply believed Rabbinic Judaism of 2 AD and beyond versus the 1500 years of Christian testimony…ironically strange partnership.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
You know, it is around this time that wonder if you guys have actually read the history of Christianity.
Anyway, 10 against one, cannot answer them all. I think I will go to the library and wait for Awful on Foundations. I am only going to talk to him for awhile because he is insistent and seems reasonable.
I suppose you have?

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” *Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345). *

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” *Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372). *

“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” *Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392). *

“Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth.” *Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400). *“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition … For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived … that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” *Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417). *
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Actually I am not interested in you guys, just my wavering brethren.
This is perhaps the most lucid statement you’ve made thus far!

It speaks volumes.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
You know, it is around this time that wonder if you guys have actually read the history of Christianity.
Well, I don’t read wikipedia, that’s for sure. I find it laughable that you cite it as your source. It’s not authored by scholars, but is a “free encyclopedia THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT.” You can make it say anything you want it to say, until some other dolt edits your revisions. :rolleyes:

I have read from other more scholastic history texts, like that of Protestant scholar Philip Schaff’s History of the Church. Schaff states, contrary to your wacky wikipedia thesis…
The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and Prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the Martyrs on their memorial days…

This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.

This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.

(Schaff, P., History of the Christian Church, Ch. IX, § 118. Sources of Theology – Scripture and Tradition.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
This is really what I am saying. The Catholic church was not one.
If you are trying to assert there have been heretics and schismatics since the first century, then you’ve made quite an obvious discovery. Judas was a prime example of the lack of unity under Christ. John 6:66 also describes other disciples of Christ who left him. Nonetheless…“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Titus 3:10)

The Church does not teach that it is “one” because there have been no schismatics or heretics.
 
Well, I don’t read wikipedia, that’s for sure. I find it laughable that you cite it as your source. It’s not authored by scholars, but is a “free encyclopedia THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT.” You can make it say anything you want it to say, until some other dolt edits your revisions. :rolleyes:
Did you find an example of a factual error you could cite?
I thought the things I did post to be common knowledge but if you see some error(s), I am sure you will point them. They could be there, I, as everyone else, understand that Wikipedia is open to errors. I always appreciate scholars and their learned insight into this issue.
I will now continue to study for my GED, I think I have a real shot this time!
 
40.png
Fredricks:
lambic, you usually have very well thought out threads as you go about your search for truth. If you do not think that it is important that different parts of the Christian church had different canons throughout history fine but I have found your previous posts, which I enjoy reading, more thought out than that.
All the same, in the early days of the Church, the various books of what we now recognize as the complete Bible had not made it to every individual church. I don’t see how what I said is in any not thought out enough. As far as official canons go, it has already been said that the same canon Catholics use today was decided in 382. Any differences before this date simply point to the fact there was nothing officially defined yet.

As far as differences after this date go, it seems that you are referring to non-Catholic groups to suggest that there were differences within the Church. Catholics believe, as I’m sure you know, that the Catholic Church is the Church. As such, if a body that split from the Catholic Church has a different canon, Catholics are not going to see that as proof of “canon disagreement” within the Church.
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?
Because, as I said, Catholics believe one must be in union with Rome to be in the Church. If that union is broken, as with the Great Schism or the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic opinion would be that these people left the Church, not that the Church split.
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?
I haven’t seen any evidence that the Catholic Church used different canons after the canon was decided. It looks like you’re using non-Catholic groups (i.e. those outside the Church) as evidence of disagreement within the Church. As a Protestant, obviously you believe that the Catholic Church is not the true Church (or at least not exclusively), but if you want the Catholic perspective, you need to understand that Catholics do claim to be the “One, Holy and Apostolic Church.”

As you say you’ve been reading my posts (which I’m glad you enjoy reading 🙂 ), you know I’m not Catholic myself. I’ve actually been looking seriously at Orthodoxy as well. As you’ve said yourself, the Orthodox use a different canon. This is one of my biggest problems with Orthodoxy right now, as the canon Catholics use today was decided before the split (EDIT: though itsjustdave1988 points out that it was not universally decided until after the Schism at the Council of Florence). This reminds me, I need to ask about this again on the Eastern Christianity forum, as my previous question seems to have gone unnoticed.

Finally, some other posters have asked what I believe to be a very fair and reasonable question. How do you, as a Protestant, know what canon to use?

God bless! 🙂
 
40.png
Fredricks:
Actually I am not interested in you guys, just my wavering brethren.
I’m sorry to hear that. The reciprocal is definitely not true. We care very much about you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top