Canon of Scripture, Catholic Style

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fredricks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
petra:
I’m sorry to hear that. The reciprocal is definitely not true. We care very much about you.
I am not interested in CONVERTING you.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
The different branches of Orthodoxy I mentioned have not died out.
But they are in schism. Protestantism has not died out. Does that make it true? What were you hoping to prove by this response?
 
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!
I am only going to answer Awfuls questions on the foundation thread for now. I find the fact that anyone can still be interested in this topic when the basketball game of the CENTURY, or last century as well, is about to be played in less than 3 hours!
to be serious, it is a good question, worthy of an answer that takes quite awhile to answer and perhaps Awful will ask that one. You guys take, one second to answer it, church authority, it takes us awhile longer. Surely you can understand that. Best of luck on your search.
 
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 would suggest that your wavering brethren read the history of Christianity, including the Didache and the writings of the early Church Fathers. There have been quite a few conversions from Protestantism to the Church after sincere efforts to discover what the early Church believed.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” - Cardinal John Newman
 
40.png
Fredricks:
I am not interested in CONVERTING you.
To the wavering Protestants for whom Fredericks has shown much concern, how do you know that all of the books in your Bible are inspired?

Who made that decision for you? How do you know the books that were chosen are inspired and that the eliminated writings are not inspired?

If you are “sola scriptura” but don’t know how, why or when the “scriptura” was set and by whom, how can you be sure that Protestantism is valid?

Fredericks has done a great job of illustrating that the Bible did not just fall from Heaven, untouched by human hands.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
to be serious, it is a good question, worthy of an answer that takes quite awhile to answer and perhaps Awful will ask that one. You guys take, one second to answer it, church authority, it takes us awhile longer. Surely you can understand that.
We have all the time in the world, so don’t let that be a deterrant. We honestly wish to know how it is that you get your canon, and we look forward to your answer.

petra
 
Too bad Fred saw fit to leave us for a basketball game - justdave answered his question to a tee and Fred didn’t even bother to acknowledge it!

Sorry 'bout that Dave. It was a great answer!
 
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.

False, here is the canon from Trullo with the deuterocanonicals highlighted. The three of solomon include Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. Baruch was part of Jeremiah in the early Church.

Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read “of Judith, one” ;] of the Maccabees**, three**; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, Which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.[1]
 
40.png
Fredricks:
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!
Good luck with the GED Fredricks.
 
**CANON LXXXV.
**
Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read “of **Judith, one” ;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, Which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.[1]
 
40.png
DianJo:
Too bad Fred saw fit to leave us for a basketball game - justdave answered his question to a tee and Fred didn’t even bother to acknowledge it!

Sorry 'bout that Dave. It was a great answer!
Thanks. I was hoping for a more indepth discussion of the canon of Scripture. It appears Fredericks’ thesis is that we poor Catholics don’t know much about history, and that’s why we cling to the most ancient Bible canon in Christian history.

Here’s another Protestant historian who explains the canon of Scripture rather nicely…

J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, Harper Collins Revised Edition, San Francisco CA, 1978, 52-56.
Code:
                                              **For the first hundred years,** at least, of it’s history the Church’s Scriptures, in the precise sense of the word, consisted **exclusively of the Old Testament.** The books comprising what later become known as the New Testament were of course, already in existence; practically all of them had been written well before the first century ended, and they were familiar to and used by second century writers. **They had not yet been elevated, however, to the special status of canonical Scriptures….**
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the … books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism.… It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hand of Christians was … the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…. most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew….
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas, and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclessiasticus in the latter. Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. Towards the close of the second century, when as a result of controversy with the Jews it became known that [the Jews] were united in repudiating the deutero-canonical books, hesitations began to creep in….
For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense…. The same inclusive attitude … was authoritatively displayed at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperious, Bishop of Toulouse, in 405.
 
Dave,
I am in one thread with Awful over at Foundations. I am not debating any indepth topics other than with Awful. I said that earlier.
Dave has not made any historical errors. All I could take exception to is the interpretation of history from Dave and the scholars he has cited. They are valid arguments. I will not directly address them now. If he wishes to PM Awfulthings who I am debating with any pointers that would be helpful for the Catholic position, that would be the extent to which I could answer his points. He has correctly pointed out that some of my statements have been simplistic. What Dave does not know is that there was a certain poster who liked to claim the church was one prior to 1054 and I do not mean just schismatics and heretics either. My posts were geared towards that person.
As far as the basketball comment, critizicing a man for watching basketball goes beyond the scope of charitable conversation, especially when the team is going to the Sweet Sixteen.
 
Very interesting way to non-respond respond to me Fredericks.

If you are going to post erroneous teachings on a Catholic website, you must be expect that you will receive responses in opposition to your position.

Now, this is the second time that you have referred to me without stating my name.

To everyone who is wondering, Fredericks has apparently started this discussion on the unity of the Church before the Great Schism as a passive aggressive response to me.

He decided several days ago that he does not want to respond to my posts (see my Tradition of Man: Prohibition of Alcohol thread).

So, he is responding indirectly to me through the use of other posters. That is apparently what he is saying here:
there was a certain poster who liked to claim the church was one prior to 1054. My posts were geared towards that person.
So, now that I have been alerted that all this has been for me 😃 I’ll start a thread on whether or not the Church was one before the Great Schism.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
As far as the basketball comment, critizicing a man for watching basketball goes beyond the scope of charitable conversation, especially when the team is going to the Sweet Sixteen.
The best policy then would be to refrain from contributing any information about which you do not wish feedback.
 
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?

"[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
Here is a better question, sinse you infer it by your presentation. Show us historically and patricically that the protestant church fathers preserved canon and gave it to the world.

When did you decide on canon and is it still open?
If not when did you close it?
Show us historically who closed your canon?
Names dates and times (eras) please, no obscure “They all had it”
If it’s still open, can books that are found be added? i.e. Epistle to the Loadicians, Pauls real second letter to the Corinthians, The gospel of Peter etc.

Why are not 1 Clement and Barnabas accepted for canon among protestants? When did your churches decide when they were out? Who decided they were uninspired and when? How was it decided they were uninspired? Evidence please.

It was just accepted by all the churches isn’t an answer. You’ll have to dig into history and show those churches and their decisions.

Who were the very first protesters? i.e. protestants (this should be very easy, it’s in the bible)

Remember protestant church fathers, not catholic ones.

The onus is on you to prove the protestant churches via the protestant church fathers did this.

Further, show us the early protestant churches, locations please. (I’ll be happy to provide them if you wish)

Also please show when the early protestant fathers decided on the Jamnian text as OT canon.

You are certainly correct when you state there were many competing christianities in the early centuries. What creed did they go by to counter the Nicene creed (or Anathasian)? Before you say “the bible” you have to prove all the above first.

When did your particular church come into existance? (The one you attend)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
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?
This undermines Sola Scriptura moreso than Sacred Tradition! :rolleyes:
 
Here is the article at Wikipedia which Fredericks uses as the foundation for his thread:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon

If you scroll all the way to almost the end of the Wikipedia entry you will find a section entitled “Modern interpretation of canonization”. Now after having waded through the vast history of the New Testament canon - apostles, texts, councils, popes, bishops - we get to the conclusion of “what all this means”.

Here is an excerpt:

"The basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord. See Apostolic Succession.

It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all books in the accepted canon, however, and some point to books that Protestants hold as apocryphal which would fulfill these requirements."

So, then we get to the finale of the Wikipedia article - the grand conclusion of all of the centuries of history discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Drum roll please…

“In practice, Protestants hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.”

TA DA! :clapping:

O.K. I know. Protestants use the Catholic Canon minus the Deuterocanonicals excised by the “reformers”. But Wikipedia is a secular site and was the one chosen by the thread-maker. So, the conclusion of the article is useful enough for our purposes.
 
40.png
Eden:
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?”
Maybe someone needs to be reminded of what you posted earlier, Eden. EVEN MARTIN LUTHER ADMITTED THIS! How can you people continue to deny it?!
 
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? - Martin Luther
That did get buried way back at post #7, didn’t it? Too bad it’s too long to fit in my sig line.

How about this one from Luther’s Commentary on St. John:

www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top