"Catholics deny the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jujubee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jujubee

Guest
Sounds wierd, I know, but to make a long story short, I was listening to an mp3 of a local Evangelical Free Church sermon. Within the sermon the pastor makes the comment (without clarification that I could tell) that the Catholic Church denied the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Just like Martin Luther, but he eventually came around.

Has anyone in their conversations with Evangelical Protestants ever heard this argument or proposition? I am wondering on what basis they claim this. Obviously this isn’t true but if someone understands where the misinformation is coming from, I would like to know.

If you want to hear it in context you can either listen to the sermon or refer to the sermon notes from the website here:

northcreek.org/resources/2009-sermon-notes-and-audio.html

Look for the 10-11-09 sermon called “Back to the Future”.

Thanks all!
 
I have never heard that- the only thing I hear about the bible is that we “added” seven books to the bible after Martin Luther begin the Reformation.
 
If the Church denied the canonicity of the above named books, why did we canonize them? The statement is self-contradictory. What this preacher MAY mean is that the books of the Bible were automatically canonized on the grounds that they were inspired, and no church need to prove inspiration. That theory fits their revisionist history and other such distortions. They must remove the bible from the Church to justify their rebellion.

The Church didn’t deny what was inspired - ever. But inspiration and canonicity are two different things.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon
 
jujubee said:
Sounds wierd, I know, but to make a long story short, I was listening to an mp3 of a local Evangelical Free Church sermon. Within the sermon the pastor makes the comment (without clarification that I could tell) that the Catholic Church denied the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Just like Martin Luther, but he eventually came around.

Has anyone in their conversations with Evangelical Protestants ever heard this argument or proposition? I am wondering on what basis they claim this. Obviously this isn’t true but if someone understands where the misinformation is coming from, I would like to know.

If you want to hear it in context you can either listen to the sermon or refer to the sermon notes from the website here:

northcreek.org/resources/2009-sermon-notes-and-audio.html

Look for the 10-11-09 sermon called “Back to the Future”.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has never denied the canonicity of these books. These books are among the more controversial ones, historically speaking, regarding the development of the Canon, so you might come across this or that Catholic or Church Father who questioned their canonicity…but the Church has always considered them canonical.
 
jujubee said:
Sounds wierd, I know, but to make a long story short, I was listening to an mp3 of a local Evangelical Free Church sermon. Within the sermon the pastor makes the comment (without clarification that I could tell) that the Catholic Church denied the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Just like Martin Luther, but he eventually came around.

Has anyone in their conversations with Evangelical Protestants ever heard this argument or proposition? I am wondering on what basis they claim this. Obviously this isn’t true but if someone understands where the misinformation is coming from, I would like to know.

If you want to hear it in context you can either listen to the sermon or refer to the sermon notes from the website here:

northcreek.org/resources/2009-sermon-notes-and-audio.html

Look for the 10-11-09 sermon called “Back to the Future”.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
I’m no expert on these things, but subjectively, I think we all hear a lot of criticisms of the Catholic Church, protestants seem to have nothing better to do than sit around and attack the Catholic Church – which they must do, of course, to justify their own beliefs.

I’m as old as Fr. Corapi (on EWTN) and I’m pretty much in agreement with him – I just don’t have time to argue about this. As Catholics, too, we don’t spend a lot of time picking apart every heresy we hear, from every street corner where a self-proclaimed messiah sets up a church. The Bible and sacred tradition, in the hands of our enlightened and inspired magisterium, is good enough for me. (I don’t believe that God is playing such a game with us as this, to “find” the “right” church. Not scriptural or historical, as I can see)

But, I appreciate the work of apologists who are constantly clarifying and reminding us of the roots of our Catholic faith.

I don’t know about others, but I HAVE FOUND the scriptural pearl of great price, I HAVE FOUND the scriptural treasure hidden in the field – and I’ve purchased it by selling off all the other (silly) ideas that I’ve ever had or continually encounter.
 
Crumpy said:
I’m no expert on these things, but subjectively, I think we all hear a lot of criticisms of the Catholic Church, protestants seem to have nothing better to do than sit around and attack the Catholic Church – which they must do, of course, to justify their own beliefs.

I’m as old as Fr. Corapi (on EWTN) and I’m pretty much in agreement with him – I just don’t have time to argue about this. As Catholics, too, we don’t spend a lot of time picking apart every heresy we hear, from every street corner where a self-proclaimed messiah sets up a church. The Bible and sacred tradition, in the hands of our enlightened and inspired magisterium, is good enough for me. (I don’t believe that God is playing such a game with us as this, to “find” the “right” church. Not scriptural or historical, as I can see)

But, I appreciate the work of apologists who are constantly clarifying and reminding us of the roots of our Catholic faith.

I don’t know about others, but I HAVE FOUND the scriptural pearl of great price, I HAVE FOUND the scriptural treasure hidden in the field – and I’ve purchased it by selling off all the other (silly) ideas that I’ve ever had or continually encounter.
Click to expand...
I would agree in as much as I personally don’t want to make a religion out of picking apart heresy, but many Catholics have been lost to Protestantism, so I think I need to be able to refute these errors to some extent. Otherwise, it’s too easy for them to steal the flock.
 
diggerdomer said:
The Catholic Church has never denied the canonicity of these books. These books are among the more controversial ones, historically speaking, regarding the development of the Canon, so you might come across this or that Catholic or Church Father who questioned their canonicity…but the Church has always considered them canonical.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know of any specific Church Fathers who questioned certain books, or for that matter advocated for books that were not accepted in the canon?
 
The canon wasn’t complete until quite late, so they may be referring to partial canon lists that did not have the specified book. I’ve heard a smattering of fathers have different thing to say, i.e. Jerome, but they never denied the canonicity, merely stated caution.
 
The Statement made by this Protestant group is absolutely false, it was universally recognized as a Canonical BEFORE the Reformation in an Ecumenical, the Council of Florence, in Session 11—4 February 1442.

Florence had the SAME EXACT Canon that we have today and it includes Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation:

If anyone wants to see Catholics questioning these books they would have to go about 1300 years before the Reformation, to a time when there was no universally agreed upon canon of the Bible. Popes in the 4th and 5th century ratified local councils declaring the canon, the same one as today. Before that you will see some debate over these books on a personal or diocesan level.

Martin Luther was canonically bound to recognize Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation as fully inspired, but he did not.
 
jujubee said:
Sounds wierd, I know, but to make a long story short, I was listening to an mp3 of a local Evangelical Free Church sermon. Within the sermon the pastor makes the comment (without clarification that I could tell) that the Catholic Church denied the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Just like Martin Luther, but he eventually came around.

Has anyone in their conversations with Evangelical Protestants ever heard this argument or proposition? I am wondering on what basis they claim this. Obviously this isn’t true but if someone understands where the misinformation is coming from, I would like to know.

If you want to hear it in context you can either listen to the sermon or refer to the sermon notes from the website here:

northcreek.org/resources/2009-sermon-notes-and-audio.html

Look for the 10-11-09 sermon called “Back to the Future”.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
OK, that was odd. I sent them an email and advised them it would probably be good if their speakers would check their facts before propagating falsehoods.

Too weird!!!
 
OK, guys. Ya’ll need to step back and go into the 2nd and 3rd centuries. There was doubt on the canonicity of these books. Revelation was accepted in the East and doubted in the West. Hebrews was accepted in the West and doubted in the East. At the same time, books like St. Clement’s Epistle to Corinth (circa 95AD), The Shepherd of Hermas (2nd century) and others were thought by some Churches to be Scriptural. I think Corinth read St. Clement’s letter for 100 years in the Liturgy (or Liturgical Cycle?).

By the later 4th century, there were 100 to 110 books brought before the councils to be considered for the New Testament (although some of them had little or no chance for acceptance). But after the councils of Hippo (390?) and Carthage (395?), the New Testament books were settled.

Henry Graham’s “Where we Got the Bible - our Debt to the Catholic Church” is a good quick read on this subject. I think you can find it free on-line at several sites.
 
NotWorthy said:
OK, guys. Ya’ll need to step back and go into the 2nd and 3rd centuries. There was doubt on the canonicity of these books. Revelation was accepted in the East and doubted in the West. Hebrews was accepted in the West and doubted in the East. At the same time, books like St. Clement’s Epistle to Corinth (circa 95AD), The Shepherd of Hermas (2nd century) and others were thought by some Churches to be Scriptural. I think Corinth read St. Clement’s letter for 100 years in the Liturgy (or Liturgical Cycle?).

By the later 4th century, there were 100 to 110 books brought before the councils to be considered for the New Testament (although some of them had little or no chance for acceptance). But after the councils of Hippo (390?) and Carthage (395?), the New Testament books were settled.

Henry Graham’s “Where we Got the Bible - our Debt to the Catholic Church” is a good quick read on this subject. I think you can find it free on-line at several sites.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the most annoying thing is that he seems to take individual opinions of certain bishops or early church fathers and then broaden that to make the claim that that represented official church teaching. It doesn’t work that way. But then they do have a warped idea of what “the church” is to begin with, so…
 
diggerdomer said:
The Catholic Church has never denied the canonicity of these books. These books are among the more controversial ones, historically speaking, regarding the development of the Canon, so you might come across this or that Catholic or Church Father who questioned their canonicity…but the Church has always considered them canonical.
Click to expand...
By analogy this is like going back to the time when heliocentrism was first brought to the attention of the world.by Copernicus. Was it heliocentrism or geocentrism. Certainly there were people who were a little behind the curve. When we read history we don’t look at these people as idiots. They just didn’t have the right arguments or knowledge to bring them to a correct conclusion.

For this minister to say that the Catholic Church didn’t believe in the canonicity of these books is to badly skew the historical development which lead to the canon of the NT scriptures. My understanding is that the ancient Church had no hankering to publish a book of inspired writings in addition to the OT scriptures that had via the Septuagint. The first century church certainly had a very high opinion of the writings of St. Paul – but it is not determined WHICH of his writings were so highly regarded. Like I mentioned in another thread - I cannot imagine the first century church saying – WOW! the letter to Philemon that he should accept the return of his slave! Awesome!! Certainly scripture.

Having lived in Catholic Culture for about 10 years and before that a Protestant Culture for almost 40 and trying to imagine what might have been going on in the first centuries and I see the potential for great confusion. THANK GOD for establishing an authoritative Church. Men just do not trust each other. In our time, at first the Diary of St. Faustina was considered heretical - other considered it completely orthodox. It took TIME and STUDY by authorities in the Church who were trained to deal with these matters to come to authoritative conclusions. There were some of the lay faithful and priests who were devoted to the Divine Mercy as understood by and revealed to St. Faustina far before the canonization. The chaplet was being prayed in the U.S. in the 50’s - I believe. Yet, at this same time, there were those in the Church who thought they were heretical. I think this is why the Church has such a lengthy process to canonize SAINTS. The difficult part for us fallen creatures to see is that BOTH groups could have been completely orthodox and hold to a view that could be false. No different for the Church Fathers. They, from their learning and experience sometimes came to differing conclusions concerning the canonicity of certain books for the NT canon; or, even before this point, just the orthodoxy of the book. As an example – I think Jewish Christians would have had an easier time accepting the orthodoxy of St. John’s Apocalypse because of their familiarity with jewish apocalyptic literature that was extant in that time period. Church Fathers who came from a Gentile background who wouldn’t have had the same experience would read the book and think it a pretty bizarre piece of writing.

I see the exact same process going on in the canonization of scripture. The Church is generally slow to bring finality to these issues. Often, they may comment, but their comment isn’t really a final authoritative comment; just a prudential judgment as to how to best proceed from the information now at hand. The Church follows the wisdom of being slow to judge - yet, the lay faithful sometimes are not so patient and we get involved in these games where we try to parse every word and generally our parsing seems to always bring us to the conclusion that we want. So, understanding this issue with the background I just laid out - I can easily see that there most probably was lively debate concerning the canonicity of the scriptures. The Holy Spirit does guide us. Yet, even our most brilliant lights – St. Augustine and St. Thomas didn’t get EVERYTHING right. So, I do not see any problem whatsoever that some of the ECF didn’t get everything right.

Would that Protestants would give a little more integrity to the process and the formation and development that took place in the early Church. It’s mostly a very messy and confusing business. Finding truth is just as difficult as finding error.

MonFrere
 
jujubee said:
Yeah, I think the most annoying thing is that he seems to take individual opinions of certain bishops or early church fathers and then broaden that to make the claim that that represented official church teaching. It doesn’t work that way. But then they do have a warped idea of what “the church” is to begin with, so…
Click to expand...
Who are the certain bishops?
Who is he?
Who is the “they” in your post?
 
Jacafamala said:
Who are the certain bishops?
Who is he?
Who is the “they” in your post?
Click to expand...
Certain bishops = I don’t know, maybe Jerome, Augustine. A couple earlier posters were referring to them.
He = the pastor who gave this sermon
They = this particular Protestant church

Sorry that wasn’t clear. Pronoun trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top