Catholic Church compiles the New Testament

[Benedict16]

Here as I have said before, comes the Council of Carthage, 397 A.D, confirming and approving the decrees of a previous Council (Hippo, 393 A.D), declaring, for all time to come, what was the exact collection of sacred writings thenceforth to be reckoned, to the exclusion of all others, as the inspired Scripture of the NT. That collection is precisely that which Catholics possess at this day in their Douai Bible. That decree of Carthage was never changed. It was sent from Rome for confirmation. As I have already remarked, a Council, even though not a general council of the whole Catholic church, may yet have its decrees made binding on the whole church by the approval and will of the pope.
A second Council of Carthage over which St. Augustine presided, in 419 A.D., renewed the decrees of the former one, and declared that its act was to be notified to Boniface, Bishop of Rome, for the purpose of confirming it. From that date all doubt ceased as to what was, and what was not ‘spurious’, or ‘genuine’, or ‘doubtful’ among the christian writings then known. Rome had spoken.
A Council of the Roman Catholic church had settled it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I’m sorry, but that’s not an answer to the question.

The question was, what Church did the canonizers of The Holy Bible belong to (I even gave a hint as to what the answer was…it was a “name”)?

(Not said rudely or sarcastically) I didn’t ask for a “when” or a “how” or for even a reference to The Church, but for the “name”.

Do you know the name of that Church?

The name of the church is the christian church, some called it catholic, which means universal later on. It does not mean they had the same beliefs of the present Catholic church or the Orthodox church. Of course they did not.
All of the books of the Bible were written prior to anyone using the word Catholic, unless you are one of those Catholics who think the books were not written by who they said they were…are you?

 

[Milliardo]

The name of the church is the christian church, some called it catholic, which means universal later on. It does not mean they had the same beliefs of the present Catholic church or the Orthodox church. Of course they did not.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism have almost the same beliefs; in that we can already see what the ancient Church believed in since these two ancient Churches have closely the same beliefs…but then again this is not the point of this thread.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Your church didn’t dogmatically declare the canon until Trent.

The Council of Trent only affirmed the canon of Scripture from other Councils, like the Council of Florence, Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

 

[Pwrlftr]

There is need to still have the comments of Jerome on it, to balance out things and let people decide for themselves. It wouldn’t help if Jerome had comments on it and it was suppressed, when it would be critical for the overall evaluation of the canon. The point is despite the comments on it, the canon stayed as it was without revision or deletion.

So before Trent the canon was settled but people could hold their own opinions as to the canonocity of the different books? Yet, after Trent it would be mortal sin to deny the canonocity of say Tobit?

What exactly then does it mean to be “settled”?

The better question is, did the Pope order the canon to be revised or Maccabees deleted from the canon? That it was never done will already show a lot.

You are assuming there was some “official” canon to be revised when there wasn’t. Even Augustine didn’t think one was bound by the decision of the earlier councils.

In your previous paragraph you say that people could decide for themselves but now you want Pope Gregory to issue a revision to the canon that was published at Carthage when that canon held no authority to bind it upon the conscious of believers.

Again, same point as above; each and every objection you raised can be answered simply thus: with each supposed objection, was there any move to revise or edit the canon? If there was none, then we can see that these objections were found to be baseless as a whole, and the canon stayed. Trent reaffirmed Carthage; Carthage completed the canon, and the Church found it sound despite the few objections made by some. We can go on with saying this and that person had an objection but it will come back to one point–the Church did not make a move to revise or delete the canon, thus we can see that as far as the Church was concerned, the canon is sound.

Again you assume their was some standard canon that was accepted between Carthage and Trent when clearly there wasn’t.

History bears out that there was great freedom in accepting the canon during these times which even Mark Shea (Catholic apologist) admits.

BTW, my objection is to the notion that the canon was “settled” at Carthage.

Since Trent and Carthage do not have an identical canon I guess that proves the canon was not settled at Carthage.

In what way would they differ?

I’ll go to Gary Michuta’s website and post what he has to say about this shortly.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Council of Trent only affirmed the canon of Scripture from other Councils, like the Council of Florence, Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

Manny,

What does it mean to “only affirm” especially since Trent’s canon didn’t match that of the earlier councils?

 

[Milliardo]

So before Trent the canon was settled but people could hold their own opinions as to the canonocity of the different books? Yet, after Trent it would be mortal sin to deny the canonocity of say Tobit?

In essence, Trent closed the matter by reaffirming what was already made.

What exactly then does it mean to be “settled”?

Simply means that as far as the Church is concerned, the canon stays as it is, and that nothing could deter nor sway her to do otherwise.

You are assuming there was some “official” canon to be revised when there wasn’t. Even Augustine didn’t think one was bound by the decision of the earlier councils.

Was there any other canon the Church used after Carthage? That none was used, nor was there any revision done, would show that there was but one official canon.

In your previous paragraph you say that people could decide for themselves but now you want Pope Gregory to issue a revision to the canon that was published at Carthage when that canon held no authority to bind it upon the conscious of believers.

My point is simple: if the Pope saw fit to have it revised, he could call a Council to have the matter talked about. Since there was none, then there is simply nothing to talk about. The canon stayed as it was. And the Council of Carthage had no authority to bind it upon believers? That Carthage sent the canon for approval to the other Patriarchs and bishops shows us that when it comes to this matter, then the whole Church should be as one, and by doing so, shows us that the Biblical canon is binding to the whole Church by the assent of the other Patriarchs and bishops.

History bears out that there was great freedom in accepting the canon during these times which even Mark Shea (Catholic apologist) admits.

Yes, there was great freedom–yet it is also interesting to note that no one saw it fit to revise and delete the canon. Again, that should already tell you something.

 

[2ndGen]

The name of the church is the christian church, some called it catholic, which means universal later on.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Was there any other canon the Church used after Carthage? That none was used, nor was there any revision done, would show that there was but one official canon.

In practice, yes there was another canon, one that lacked the deutero’s.

If there was an official canon, why did the church undermine itself so much?

My point is simple: if the Pope saw fit to have it revised, he could call a Council to have the matter talked about. Since there was none, then there is simply nothing to talk about. The canon stayed as it was. And the Council of Carthage had no authority to bind it upon believers? That Carthage sent the canon for approval to the other Patriarchs and bishops shows us that when it comes to this matter, then the whole Church should be as one, and by doing so, shows us that the Biblical canon is binding to the whole Church by the assent of the other Patriarchs and bishops.

Pope Leo X apporved of Cardinal Ximenes work which rejected the deutero’s. Maybe he and the good cardinal didn’t get the word?

Maybe the divines at Trent who voted to reject the deutero’s didn’t get the word that Carthage was the “official” canon?

There was no official canon to reject and that is why non one called a council to revise Carthage or Hippo.

Yes, there was great freedom–yet it is also interesting to note that no one saw it fit to revise and delete the canon. Again, that should already tell you something.

Doesn’t it seem illogical to have an official canon that settled the issue on the one hand and a church that made no move to enforce the canon on the other and in fact did a pretty good job of undermining the supposed “official” canon?

Maybe the reason the reason a council wasn’t called is because the issue was still working itself out in the church?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Let’s see what Cardinal Cajetan has to say:

Cajetan:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.129

129 Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

Who was Cardinal Cajetan:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.128

128 Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 Volumes (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913). See also New Advent at www.newadvent.org.

It would seem that some of you are at odds w/ the good cardinal.

Cajetan sees that the councils were provincial, not universal and apparently he didn’t see them having any authority over him and in fact he felt Jerome had authority over the council.

I’ll post what Augustine had to say on the provinical councils later.

 

[2ndGen]

In “Hebrews” there is no reference to Paul being the author;
there is no reference to the Hebrews.

It was only in the second century CE that this epistle became interpreted as being directed at Hebrews.

1,2 and 3 John contain no reference to authorship by the author(s) of the Gospel of John.

Among biblical critical scholars:
95% believe that Peter did not write 2 Peter
75% believe that Jude did not write Jude
75% believe that James did not write James
50% believe that Peter did not write 1 Peter.

religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb4.htm

 

[Milliardo]

In practice, yes there was another canon, one that lacked the deutero’s.

In practice, I don’t see where it is, nor know it to exist prior to Protestantism.

If there was an official canon, why did the church undermine itself so much?

Where did it undermine itself? With the few people who made the objections? If it undermined itself, then it would have made an attempt to revise the canon or else contradict Carthage then. It simply did not do any of those things.

Pope Leo X apporved of Cardinal Ximenes work which rejected the deutero’s. Maybe he and the good cardinal didn’t get the word?

Getting an approval doesn’t necessarily mean he agreed with it; it simply means that he found the work worthy of study and reflection, yet at the end of it all the question would still stand–did the Pope ask for a revision?

Maybe the divines at Trent who voted to reject the deutero’s didn’t get the word that Carthage was the “official” canon?

Again, you’re posing a vain question–show me when the Church called for a revision of the canon.

There was no official canon to reject and that is why non one called a council to revise Carthage or Hippo.

If we go by this logic, then there should be no official canon that Trent should affirm then…

Doesn’t it seem illogical to have an official canon that settled the issue on the one hand and a church that made no move to enforce the canon on the other and in fact did a pretty good job of undermining the supposed “official” canon?

If there was nothing to enforce, then Trent would have no basis to make a declaration. The Church did not see any necessity to clamp down prior to Trent since there was no serious threat to the canon then; people on the whole accepted it as it was. Only when there was a serious threat was Trent necessary.

Maybe the reason the reason a council wasn’t called is because the issue was still working itself out in the church?

A Council would then effectively sort things out if things were still working itself out, since the Church as one would work in a Council.

 

[Milliardo]

It would seem that some of you are at odds w/ the good cardinal.

FYI Cajetan is not the Church. In the same way as a bishop might have his own views regarding, say, contraception; regardless of what that bishop says, what the Church says on the matter is what counts, not the voice of one man.

 

[Pwrlftr]

FYI Cajetan is not the Church. In the same way as a bishop might have his own views regarding, say, contraception; regardless of what that bishop says, what the Church says on the matter is what counts, not the voice of one man.

No, Cajetan isn’t the church but neither is Milliardo either. Cajetan was appointed by your church to interview Luther at the Diet of Worms. It would seem odd to choose a cardinal who wasn’t smart enough to recognize an “official” canon to ineract with Luther with all that was riding on the Diet of Worms.

While a bishop may have views that aren’t those of the church that has no bearing on our conversation. It is completely ahistorical to assume that Carthage and Hippo were anything other than provinical councils.

 

[2ndGen]

PW? Rightly?

The name of The Church that God chose to reveal His Word to?

 

[Benedict16]

Rome had fixed the ‘Canon’ of the NT. There are but two classes of books—inspired and not inspired. Within the covers of the NT all is inspired; all without, known or unknown, is uninspired. Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost the Council declared ‘This is genuine, that is false’; this is Apostolic, that is not Apostolic’. She sifted, weighed, discussed, selected, rejected, and finally decided what was what. Here she rejected a writing that was once very popular by many as inspired, and was actually read as Scripture at public service; there, again, she accepted another that was very much disputed and viewed with suspicion, and said: "This is to go in to the NT’. She had the evidence before her; she had tradition to help her; and above all she had the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to enable her to come to a right conclusion.
And in fact, her conclusion was received by all Christendom until the sixteenth century, when men arose rebelling against her decision and altering the Sacred volume.

 

[Benedict16]

No, Cajetan isn’t the church but neither is Milliardo either. Cajetan was appointed by your church to interview Luther at the Diet of Worms. It would seem odd to choose a cardinal who wasn’t smart enough to recognize an “official” canon to ineract with Luther with all that was riding on the Diet of Worms.

While a bishop may have views that aren’t those of the church that has no bearing on our conversation. It is completely ahistorical to assume that Carthage and Hippo were anything other than provinical councils.

Quit this will you? These are facts and it is very hard to accept when you are not a Catholic, that this is indeed the true story of the Bible. Protestants can PROTEST all they want. History will never change.

 

[Pwrlftr]

In practice, I don’t see where it is, nor know it to exist prior to Protestantism.

I have no idea how you can say you don’t see the same canon that I as a protestant accept in practice. From Melito of Sardis to Jerome all the way to Trent it appears that many if not most accepted a different canon than you now accept.

From newadvent.org
OT Canon:

The Latin Church
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

This is the middle ages, not before Carthage or Hippo. Need I remind you only 44% of those who were tasked with voting on the canonocity of the various books at Trent affirmed the canonical status of the deutero’s while 27% voted to the negative and 29% abstained. Should we assume that the 56% of the divines doing the voting had no idea of an “official” canon issued at Carthage or Hippo?

In fact, if there was an official canon, why vote again on it? Why not, as some of you claim happened, just reaffirm it? Why vote on it? I realize you believe the Holy Spirit led the council but if the Holy Spirit led Carthage why subject the Holy Spirit to another test at Trent?

Where did it undermine itself? With the few people who made the objections? If it undermined itself, then it would have made an attempt to revise the canon or else contradict Carthage then. It simply did not do any of those things.

Getting an approval doesn’t necessarily mean he agreed with it; it simply means that he found the work worthy of study and reflection, yet at the end of it all the question would still stand–did the Pope ask for a revision?

So getting the popes approval after Carthage only meant that the canon issued at Carthage was worthy of study and reflection. If that’s what you mean by the canon being settled I can agree with you but I suspect that’s not what you mean.

Why would the pope ask for a revision of the council of Carthage when it wasn’t binding or “official”?

Again, you’re posing a vain question–show me when the Church called for a revision of the canon.

The canon wasn’t dogmatically declared for your church until Trent.

If there was nothing to enforce, then Trent would have no basis to make a declaration. The Church did not see any necessity to clamp down prior to Trent since there was no serious threat to the canon…

Yeah, okay. We have the vulgate being sent out with all the negative comments to the canonocity of the deutero’s, we have the glossa ordinaire rejecting the deutero’s, we have Cardinal Ximenes’ bible rejecting the deutero’s with Pope Leo X’s approval.

There was no offical canon to reject before Trent. Even Mark Shea admits that one had some lattitude in what to accept as canonical before Trent.

Anyway, if the canon was settled, why have a vote at Trent, why not just re-publish the previous canon? Also, why the negative votes and abstaining votes, were these guys not catechized correctly?

 

[2ndGen]

Quit this will you? These are facts and it is very hard to accept when you are not a Catholic, that this is indeed the true story of the Bible. Protestants can PROTEST all they want. History will never change.

youtube.com/watch?v=SkeWjWKqHdo

 

[Pwrlftr]

Quit this will you? These are facts and it is very hard to accept when you are not a Catholic, that this is indeed the true story of the Bible. Protestants can PROTEST all they want. History will never change.

What facts?

You are right, history won’t change the fact that Carthage and Hippo were provinical and that the canon for your church wasn’t dogmatically declared before Trent.