Council of Carthage 419

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steveabrous
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steveabrous

Guest
I read from Catholic sources that one of the regional council’s that settled the Canon of scripture was Carthage 419 and that this is the council that sent the matter to the Pope and was ratified by the Pope. However if I look up the council in Wikipedia ,or other non catholic sources, it says the council met to basically reject the Pope’s authority in local matters. Saying St Augustin was involved. what gives?
 
Steveabrous said:
I read from Catholic sources that one of the regional council’s that settled the Canon of scripture was Carthage 419 and that this is the council that sent the matter to the Pope and was ratified by the Pope. However if I look up the council in Wikipedia ,or other non catholic sources, it says the council met to basically reject the Pope’s authority in local matters. Saying St Augustin was involved. what gives?
Click to expand...
There were multiple Councils of Carthage. The one that dealt with the biblical canon was in 397, not 419. 419 dealt with, I believe, an excommunicated priest who appealed to Rome. The question was whether the Pope had right to overrule a local church.
 
All Catholic apologetic material I’ve ever seen lists both council’s 397 and 419 as having approved the Canon of scripture. Here is an example from EWTNs web site

"Council of Carthage,African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419):

"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:"

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=333855&language=en
 
This is what new advent the Catholic encyclopedia says:

Councils were nowhere more frequently called in the Primitive Times than in Africa. In the year 418-19, all canons formerly made in sixteen councils held at Carthage one at Milevis, one at Hippo, that were approved of, were read, and received a new sanction from a great number of bishop’s.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
 
Last edited:
My impression, too, was that the canon had been fixed since the Council of Rome, organized and hosted in fact by Jerome on behalf of Pope Damasus, and that subsequent councils such as Carthage simply repeated the same list of canonical books. On this list at EWTN that you link to here, Amos seems to be missing, but that’s probably just a typo.
 
If you read the whole Council, Roman primacy is quite clear throughout. The issue at hand is whether the priest could appeal the judgment of his bishop to Rome under the canons in place at the time.

What the Pope can do in he abstract and what he should do in concrete circumstances are two different things. He should not act like an arbitrary tryant, but should respect the lawfully enacted canons.

In this case, there was confusion based on a canon from the Council of Serdica, erroneously ascribed to Nicea I, as to what the proper process was.
 
Last edited:
But did they address the topic of the biblical Canon at Carthage 419 as many Catholic sources say. And so where can I verify
 
The problem with Rome 382 under Damasus is not all historians agree that a biblical Canon was put forth.

The only ones I can verify outside Catholic sources are Hippo, Carthage 397, and Innocent I. Which is fine it still proves the point. but so many Catholic sources also say Carthage 419 I would like to verify it because that’s the one they say was ratified by Pope Boniface.
 
The very link you provided earlier, with the whole text of the Council, has the text of canon 24:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, 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.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
Click to expand...
The bishop, Boniface, was the Pope at the time of the 419 Council.

Here is another link on this canon in particular:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
 
Last edited:
Thank you, yes I should have looked further in my own link. This is what wikipedia says happened at Carthage 419.

The African church leadership told Rome that Nicaea indeed “gave no authority for appeals by priests against their episcopal superiors.” They further warned Pope Zosimus, and later [Pope Celestine I] not to “introduce the empty pride of the world into the Church of Christ” and to “keep their Roman noses out of African affairs”.The Council ruled that no bishop may call himself “Prince of Bishops” or “Supreme Bishop” or any other title which suggests Supremacy (Canon 39). It also ruled that if any of the African clergy dared to appeal to Rome, “the same was ipso facto cast out of the clergy”

I do see something similar in Canon 39 to this but this is clearly a misrepresentation of the council. Wiki makes it look like this was all it was.

Again, thank you for clearing that up.
 
Yeah, canon 39 doesn’t oppose our authentic doctrine on the primacy. It is ruling out the same meaning that was later at the heart of the “universal bishop” controversy St. Gregory the Great opposed. What is being proscribed is any implication that the relationship between other bishops and the bishop of Rome was the same as between bishops and their priests. Bishops are not vicars of the Pope and they have “ordinary” (ie non-delegated) authority of their own based on the divine constitution of the Church. Along those same lines, the Pope does not have a greater priesthood than other bishops, like bishops do compared to simple priests.

In this case, for example, all bishops are rightly called “summus sacerdos” (what is mistranslated as “supreme bishop”) as the Church still teaches (see e.g. CCC 1557 and 1586). In a given context, applying that term to the Roman primacy can distort what the primacy is and reduces the priesthood of the other bishops.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
Amos seems to be missing, but that’s probably just a typo.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is a typo.

See The Faith of the Early Fathers by William A. Jurgens volume 1 page 406 which lists Amos, after Osee.

OSEE now known as HOSEA.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top