Canon of Scripture

[steve_b]

Glossa Ord. continued
The Glossa Ordinaria

The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith.

I saw where you pulled this entire piece from. There’s alot of commentary and personal opinion here.

Jerome was translating from the Hebrew text Not the Greek text. Therefore, the Palestinian Jews had a different canon than the Helenist Jews who had the septuagint.
Pwrl:

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha.

THAT depends on which Jews one is talking about, Palestinian or Helenist Jews

[snip] for space

 

[steve_b]

“Since Hippo and Carthage were local councils, they don’t bind the entire Church to their ruling…”

That’s all I have been trying to say. However in an earlier post you say disagree w/ me when I say believers had some freedom w/ regards to the canon before Trent. It appears you hold contradictory beliefs.

Go back and look at what I said. Disagreement doesn’t equal the elimination of books. And what I was responding to was the word binding.

 

[jmcrae]

“Since Hippo and Carthage were local councils, they don’t bind the entire Church to their ruling…”

That’s all I have been trying to say. However in an earlier post you say disagree w/ me when I say believers had some freedom w/ regards to the canon before Trent. It appears you hold contradictory beliefs.

It seems to me that people are confusing the Old Testament with the New Testament.

The Old Testament canon was closed at Trent.

The New Testament canon was closed by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, after hearing the findings of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. They didn’t do anything with the Old Testament - they left it just as they found it.

It’s also true that St. Jerome, being influenced by the Palestinian Jews, was hostile to the Alexandrian canon at one point in his life; he later did further study, and changed his mind on that issue.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

GINGER

I see a real problem with #3. Shouldn’t that be the churches teaching cannot contradict God’s word?

The problem here is that the Church was teaching before Scripture was written, in fact, Scripture is some of the written teachings of the Church! This is why teaching cannot contradict scripture because scripture is another kind of teaching and the Church can not contradict itself.

How does it make sense to place Church teaching under scripture when scripture came second? When was the Bible first available? Where there ever Christian communities that did not have a Bible or a living Apostles to guide them? Certainly, so they were guided by the bishop and the recieved teachings of the Church.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I saw where you pulled this entire piece from. There’s alot of commentary and personal opinion here.

Newadvent.org has just about the same information on the glossa if you would like to read about it there.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Go back and look at what I said. Disagreement doesn’t equal the elimination of books. And what I was responding to was the word binding.

What is it about “bind” or “binding” that you disagree with?

 

[Deconi]

What is it about “bind” or “binding” that you disagree with?

What the church teaches and professes is ‘binding’ on all Catholics! We do not ‘see’ what you see because we are not in the habit of dragging everything The Church teaches through a “comparable sift” with something else.

However, we are all thinking minds and every Catholic is free to think, discuss and debate anything we may find obscured from our understanding, or what appears to be obviously significant. But when we debate or discuss, as heated as some of those may become, we are always, always, always aware that The Church has the final say and Truth remains outside of our conclusions. This is why we can disagree with the laity, and prelates even, and draw their attention to Church teachings, if and when the need arises. But even when we do this, we are mindful of the integrity and respect due to each individual and also that The Church may decide on an issue by illuminating and concluding on something completely unconsidered in those discussions!

It is the beauty of enjoying a Final Authority.

Now, you can see from that, or implications from it, that discussions and debates are not confined to those within The Church. Some leave; others enquire from outside; others may criticise etc. The Church RARELY comments.

But when ‘practices’ and ‘teachings’ within Catholicism are in stark contrast to what She actually professes, and errors are believed to be truths, it is then the Councils are convened to settle the issues! The Council’s conclusions are OUR mandate. NOT THEIR DISCUSSIONS, nor who dissented, nor how many were in disagreement during those discussions.

The CONCLUSION is what is binding on Catholics.

If ‘errors’ or dissention in thought continues, or because others profess to be teaching The Truth when in fact are not, then another Council may declare the above conclusion as DOGMATIC and dogmatically BIND that conclusion for ALL Catholic Christians. This is what Trent did for Hippo and Carthage.

As you say, “Lifter,” there may have been ‘dissent’ in thought about the Deutro-canon books. I have not read the 2 - individuals you mention because I don’t have to. 2 Catholics do not equate to The Church. They, as Catholics, are free to think just like all of us. I would wager there may have been more outside of printed records. But the bottom line is, since they REMAINED Catholics, we can conclude that they believed as we do when our thoughts wander over what The Church teaches. That in spite of our misgivings, where they exist, we trust Her to hold and teach The Truth, because we have ABSOLUTE TRUST in Her Founder!

Not because we hold Him to His promise of guidance, but because we place our faith in His care.

 

[mercygate]

A footnote to this thread should be that nobody, Protestant, Catholic, JW or Mormon, holds all books of Scripture to be of equal prominence.

Does ANYBODY hold Philemon to be the equivalent of the Gospel According to St. John? Catholics value ALL of Scripture as inspired and inerrant but we certainly quote second Isaiah a LOT more than we quote Zephaniah.

 

[mgrfin]

A footnote to this thread should be that nobody, Protestant, Catholic, JW or Mormon, holds all books of Scripture to be of equal prominence.

Does ANYBODY hold Philemon to be the equivalent of the Gospel According to St. John? Catholics value ALL of Scripture as inspired and inerrant but we certainly quote second Isaiah a LOT more than we quote Zephaniah.

They are Scripture so they are all equal. I don’t read Revelations an awful lot, but Protestants love to quote it cause they speak of the Second Coming and the Millenium, and all that. I don’t.

peace

 

[Deconi]

A footnote to this thread should be that nobody, Protestant, Catholic, JW or Mormon, holds all books of Scripture to be of equal prominence.

Does ANYBODY hold Philemon to be the equivalent of the Gospel According to St. John? Catholics value ALL of Scripture as inspired and inerrant but we certainly quote second Isaiah a LOT more than we quote Zephaniah.

I hold ALL of Scriptures equivalent! The Gospel of the Saints, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are equivalent to Esdras, Ruth, Susanna and Judith.

I know that in Judaism, there are different levels of ‘inspiration’ accorded to Holy Writ. For instance, Moses holds the highest and then several Rabbinic ‘books’ are at the lower level.

Neither The Church nor the ECFs differentiate between the books in this manner. They simple refer to (all) Holy Scriptures as being inspired. It makes sense and logical, to me, since the Words of God, whether through ‘men’ or donkeys, are all eternal, as He is. Meaning every word is as eternal as each other; EQUAL.

 

[peary]

*Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan probably did accept the council of Trent w/ regards to the canon and certainly didn’t start their own church but that isn’t the issue either. Cajetan clearly didn’t see the earlier councils as binding upon his conscious and he was known as a scholar. If the earlier councils were in fact binding, why was he unaware of this? *

Early Church councils were binding on THE ENTIRE CHURCH because a council is the Church’s TEACHING MAGISTERIUM because it is comprised of its bishops and the pope. And both the bishops and the pope are the Teaching Magisterium of the whole Church.

What Cajetan thought or believed is irrelevant.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Early Church councils were binding on THE ENTIRE CHURCH because a council is the Church’s TEACHING MAGISTERIUM because it is comprised of its bishops and the pope. And both the bishops and the pope are the Teaching Magisterium of the whole Church.

What Cajetan thought or believed is irrelevant.

Well, let’s see…

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.

If Trent was “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal”, doesn’t that mean the earlier councils were less than Trent? Either they weren’t addressed to the church universal or they weren’t infallible or the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong? What do you think?

Catholic apologist Mark Shea says:
Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon.

Shea seems convinced that “it was in the cards” for believers to have some flexibility regarding the canon. Maybe he is wrong?

The Catholic Encyclopeida says this about the Vulgate:
This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. **With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. **

Rather odd that the church would make something binding upon the conscience of all believers than sabotage that effort by diseminating the vulgate complete with Jerome’s preface which rejected the canonocity of the apocrypha/deutero’s. How do you epxlain this if the earlier councils were binding upon the whole church?

From catholic-legate.com/articles/esdras.html
[12] Although either “synod” or “council” is correct, I have decided to use the former rather than the latter to help distinguish these local councils from ecumenical or general ones, like Trent. Both the Synods of Hippo and Carthage provide an important witness to the Catholic Canon, but were regional councils whose canons were not binding on the whole Church. Discussions of infallibility are beyond the scope of this article, but briefly stated the clearest decree from the Church which removed all doubt for Catholics on which books belonged in the Canon came from the mid-16th century Ecumenical Council of Trent.

Another Catholic apologist stating non-ambiguously that the earlier councils were not binding on the whole Church.

What say you Peary?

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

I am always interested when a Protestant starts quoting to us statements from various Church councils, trying to see if we have ‘developed’ doctrine throughout the ages.

I think Protestants should watch their own windows. They have not infallibility, and no magisterium, yet they tell us that the Scriptures are self-authenticating, that there is no need for any infallible source to tell us that these books are inspired.

Let me ask you, Pwrlftr, what makes you believe that every word of Scripture is the truth, that it is the revealed word of God? What is your authority for saying this is “Inspired Word of God” ?

peace

 

[Pwrlftr]

I am always interested when a Protestant starts quoting to us statements from various Church councils, trying to see if we have ‘developed’ doctrine throughout the ages.

Doesn’t your own church teach that doctrine develops? Also, have you found any errors in anything I have stated? For the most part I even quoted Catholic sources and gave links to the sources.

I think Protestants should watch their own windows. They have not infallibility, and no magisterium, yet they tell us that the Scriptures are self-authenticating, that there is no need for any infallible source to tell us that these books are inspired.

Let’s see…the Jews had no infallibility, and no magesterium, yet they were entrusted w/ the oracles of God and we see throughout the gospels that Jesus assumed they knew what the scriptures were. How did they recognize the scriptures w/ nothing similar to the Catholic church guiding them?

Let me ask you, Pwrlftr, what makes you believe that every word of Scripture is the truth, that it is the revealed word of God? What is your authority for saying this is “Inspired Word of God” ?

Faith.

Now, why do you believe the Catholic Church is what it claims to be?

 

[peary]

Now, why do you believe the Catholic Church is what it claims to be?

Uh, because it was founded by Jesus Christ Himself?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Uh, because it was founded by Jesus Christ Himself?

What do you think of my points in post 171?

 

[jmcrae]

What do you think of my points in post 171?

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, etc., were examining the New Testament; not the Old. They didn’t even talk about the Old Testament; they just kept it at 46 books, as was traditional at the time (and continues to be until now), but they didn’t rule on it one way or the other. They were interested in knowing which books belonged in the New Testament, and that’s what they focused on.

 

[peary]

What do you think of my points in post 171?

Councils do not ‘make’ doctrine or all of a sudden come up with the idea of a doctrine. They DEFINE what already has been commonly accepted in the Church. When the Councils of Hippo and Cathage ‘defined’ the early Canon of Scripture, that is what they did because those were the writings being used already by the majority of Christian communities. They didn’t just sit down and say, “Let’s choose what books we want to put in a canon.” What they DID do was ascertain, in the very early centuries, what writings reflected the teachings of the Church. THE CHURCH CAME FIRST, NOT THE SCRIPTURES (NT). When a Council DEFINES something, it makes a definite pronouncement on what has GONE BEFORE when it becomes a question, much as the canon did during the protestant revolt. Trent answered those critics by saying that ALL the books of the Bible that have been accepted by the Church up to that time are the Word of God and are not to be tampered with. Therefore, the Canon is ‘officially’ closed.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, etc., were examining the New Testament; not the Old. They didn’t even talk about the Old Testament; they just kept it at 46 books, as was traditional at the time (and continues to be until now), but they didn’t rule on it one way or the other. They were interested in knowing which books belonged in the New Testament, and that’s what they focused on.

From catholic.com

Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

I’m not aware of any dispute that these two synods/councils included the books in question nor their authenticity so I’m not sure what you mean by they didn’t discuss the OT since they listed it in the above citations.

I have heard that they did close the canon of the NT which goes along with what you are saying.

I’m about to pack it in for the night. See you later.

 

[Pwrlftr]

By the way, I would like to say I appreciate the civil tone in our discussion. I know you guys are just as passionate about what you believe as I am about my beliefs but so far we have been able to enter into discussion as opposed to what many times happens on a religious based forum.