Council of Trent technicality and the Canon

[fish90]

A poster on another tread brought up that the Council of Trent did not technically close the issue of the canonical books of the bible, so there is a possibility that the Catholic Church can add books from the Orthodox Communion should reunification happen.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

 

[DOShea]

Before addressing that question, I’d like to know upon what evidence is based the idea that the COT “did not technically close the issue of the canonical books of the bible?”

The Fourth Session of the Council reiterated the same canon we always had, then specified that of among the various Latin translations, the Vulgate was the approved version. Where is the unclosed business?

 

[adriancombe]

Before addressing that question, I’d like to know upon what evidence is based the idea that the COT “did not technically close the issue of the canonical books of the bible?”

The Fourth Session of the Council reiterated the same canon we always had, then specified that of among the various Latin translations, the Vulgate was the approved version. Where is the unclosed business?

Good question. I’m no expert on this but the part of the document in question is not too involved. Here is a partial citation:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

The verbiage is focused on counteracting the tendency to exclude some books. Note terms like ‘receive not’ and ‘contemn’. It definitely specifies a canon but it is silent on whether other books might be included by a later decree. It is simply silent on the issue of open vs. closed.

However, two points might have inclined the Council Fathers to make sure they did not specifically close the topic:

1. The Church of the East has some books we do not…and boy wouldn’t it be great to reunite some day!
2. Equal powers can’t bind, so if the Holy Spirit wants to lead a later generation of Bishops to add some books, let’s not muddy the waters by putting them in a position to appear to need to ‘bind’ an equal power.

 

[SemperReformada]

Before addressing that question, I’d like to know upon what evidence is based the idea that the COT “did not technically close the issue of the canonical books of the bible?”

The Fourth Session of the Council reiterated the same canon we always had, then specified that of among the various Latin translations, the Vulgate was the approved version. Where is the unclosed business?

This is Gary Michuta’s opinion which you may be able to find some more information on at www.handsonapologetics.com.

 

[DOShea]

If you look at the books given in the Council of Rome 382 AD, the list is the same (allowing for differences in names like Sophonias = Zephaniah) as what Trent decreed. This side issue brought up by J. White - I don’t know what his point is.

The canon is closed, and has been so since 382 AD. The other coucils in the early 5th century in Africa decreed the same canon.

I don’t understand why anyone is worried about the canon expanding. Is there someone out there with a new Old Testament book looking to get it included?

 

[adriancombe]

If you look at the books given in the Council of Rome 382 AD, the list is the same (allowing for differences in names like Sophonias = Zephaniah) as what Trent decreed. This side issue brought up by J. White - I don’t know what his point is.

The canon is closed, and has been so since 382 AD. The other coucils in the early 5th century in Africa decreed the same canon.

I don’t understand why anyone is worried about the canon expanding. Is there someone out there with a new Old Testament book looking to get it included?

See #3 above. The East has some OT books we do not.

 

[diggerdomer]

A poster on another tread brought up that the Council of Trent did not technically close the issue of the canonical books of the bible, so there is a possibility that the Catholic Church can add books from the Orthodox Communion should reunification happen.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

I don’t think the difference in Old Testament books among various Christians is an obstacle to Christian unity. If there were a difference in the New Testament canon I think there would be.

Look at how the recent outreach to Anglicans might play out, i.e. allowing different liturgical forms, married, priests, etc… Same could be done imho for the Old Testament.

 

[thistle]

See #3 above. The East has some OT books we do not.

The Council of Trent CLOSED the Canon.

How do we know? Because it DEFINITIVELY listed what books are in the Canon and stated that anyone disagreeing “let him be anathema” (i.e. solemnly condemned/excommunicated).
Therefore no books can be taken out of that list and no books can be added to that list.

 

[adriancombe]

The Council of Trent CLOSED the Canon.

How do we know? Because it DEFINITIVELY listed what books are in the Canon and stated that anyone disagreeing “let him be anathema” (i.e. solemnly condemned/excommunicated).
Therefore no books can be taken out of that list and no books can be added to that list.

Did you see my post # 3 above? It did not specify closing, and only specified condemning those who did not accept the books.

What do you think about the equal powers binding issue?

 

[thistle]

Did you see my post # 3 above? It did not specify closing, and only specified condemning those who did not accept the books.

What do you think about the equal powers binding issue?

I don’t agree. Trent gave a definitive list. That means it cannot be changed. The list was decided by Trent under the guidance of the Holy Spirit or are you suggesting the Holy Spirit lied or might have a change of mind??
If the Orthodox Church ever comes back into the fold (and we pray they do) they will have to accept the Canon as defined by Trent.

 

[diggerdomer]

If the Orthodox Church ever comes back into the fold (and we pray they do) they will have to accept the Canon as defined by Trent.

Why?

Before the Schism, wasn’t there a difference between the Churches in the Old Testament canon? That apparently wasn’t an obstacle to unity.

As the Orthodox don’t consider “ecumenical” the Councils following the first seven, how those Councils would be interpreted and understood (including Trent) would have to be assessed to see what issues remain regarding the restoration of communion.

The dialogues between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches seem to focus on hierarchical (papacy, primacy, conciliarity, etc.) and sacramental (communion, orders, marriage) issues along with understanding the historical factors that led to the schism including the filioque issue.

For example:

usccb.org/seia/orthodox_index.shtml

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

I don’t see anywhere the Catholic Church saying that the difference in canon in the Old Testament is an obstacle to unity.

 

[MonFrere]

I don’t agree. Trent gave a definitive list. That means it cannot be changed. The list was decided by Trent under the guidance of the Holy Spirit or are you suggesting the Holy Spirit lied or might have a change of mind??
If the Orthodox Church ever comes back into the fold (and we pray they do) they will have to accept the Canon as defined by Trent.

We may not be haggling over much. Here is an example. Psalm 151 - a Psalm not in the LXX but in the text used by the Orthodox. It’s a rehash of other biblical material. So, nothing doctrinally significant is missing. IOW - I don’t see these differences between our Bibles to be real issues toward reunification. If they can accept the Pope as the universal leader of the universal Church; then these issues will take care of themselves. Sometimes I think we think some things are set in stone when they are not. Witness the flexibility of Pope Benedict with the Anglicans.

What I see as being a problem is if there is an INSISTENCE by a party that something MUST BE INCLUDED. IOW – sometimes differences of opinion can be tolerated if it doesn’t reach a critical mass of causing division. There’s a bit more flexibility, I find, in the Church than sometimes we give credit or allow for. If/When things reach critical mass - then the Church steps in a definitively speaks on the matter. The language of the Councils are often very narrow and speak to specific contexts. I would not doubt this would come into play if there were further issues with the canon of the scriptures. IOW - During Trent the Council was speaking to the specific difference between the Protestant Canon and the Catholic Canon but not necessarily speaking to the canon for all time.

Just thinking out loud.

PSALM 151 - The Deeds of David

I was smaller than my brothers,
Youngest of my father’s sons,
A shepherd for his sheep and goats;
But my hands made a pipe,
And my fingers plucked a lyre
To glorify the Lord,
Since the mountains were silent,
And the hills were not proclaiming
The deeds of the Lord:
So let them echo my words and deeds.
For God has seen and heard
And attended to everything.
He has anointed me with holy oil,
And set me as a prince and ruler
Over the children of his covenant.
Hallelujah!

MonFrere