P
Peter_J
Guest
I haven’t heard that question much. I think just once, and that implied that presbyterus does mean priest.
- Status
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Greetings.
This is probably worthy of it’s own thread.
But let’s take a brief look at it.
Catholic Church(Latin Rite where the Pope’s office resides) has had the same scriptures since the end of the 4th century
The Eastern Churches still, to this day, do not have a universally agreed upon Canon.
Protestant reformers removed or discredited 7 books that were considered scripture and read in Church for over a thousand years… and wanted to toss out others like James, Jude and Revelation. And cant agree on much doctrinaly within their own ranks.
Only one of these 3 branches has been remarkably consistent, especially with the canon. I’d say Catholics are not taking much of a leap of faith in trusting in the Church, that is, was, and continues to be, guided by the Holy Spirit and a promise from Jesus Christ.
Sounds like you do not believe in OSAS. Thank God for that because it’s a horrible and dangerous doctrine
S
susanlo
Guest
Why does it have to be just one person? Why does it have to be one small group at one specific fixed point in history? Why can’t it be scholarly consensus over the centuries of the Scriptural qualities of the writings along with the study of the history and early acknowledgement and acceptance of the texts?
The Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament through the Apostles (and those close to their ministry). The Holy Spirit guided Christianity in accepting and utilizing Scripture and has protected the New Testament books for almost 2000 years. Except for the obvious answer of the hand of God orchestrating all of this, I don’t think one person or one small group alone was responsible for discerning the books of the New Testament.
R
rcwitness
Guest
either Sola Scripture is correct, and all generations of Christians had the undisputed Bible, or the rule of faith is ensured by a living Church able to judge and settle matters of faith and morals. By the way, I’m not implying that Scripture is not a foundation of the faith, or that the Church is not guided with it, or that anything can contradict Scripture. But that the authority of the Church is relied on, even to confirm the Canon of Scripture.
M
Michael68
Guest
I don’t think it was one man or a small group. Two councils I know of, Hippo and Carthage, had the current cannon. Definitely not a small group
R
rcwitness
Guest
and the Church of God is not a democracy either. We can vote on certain things, but matters of the faith are either one way or not.
Either a book is Scripture or its not. How do we have assurance that is foundational to what we believe in? Scripture is a foundation, but the Church is able to confirm what is from above or what is not.
The fact that Jesus and the father did not reveal Himself, what the Canon is, is evidence that the Church authority was intended to uphold the deposit of faith.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Rome was a Synod since Eastern Bishops were invited but said they could not make it.
We know Pope Damasas made the decree on the Canon in 382AD(same as we have today)
Then 11 years later at Hippo it’s reaffirmed, and again reaffirmed, at Carthage in 397AD and then submitted back to the Pope for ratification.
This was a big deal then because the primary goal is to eliminate heresies like Arianism completely. So the Pontiff wanted to be absolutely certain the canon was free from erroneous teachings. The Church spent a great deal of time and effort protecting our faith, yet seems to get no credit for this from her many critics.
And our canon probably should be binding in the East as well since they consider Trullo to be Ecumenical and recognized the canon then. But they had and continue to have, their own internal schisms.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Hardly one man, but you do need one final referee. If not, you become the Eastern Churches which still cant agree on a canon to this day.
Pope Damasas made the famous decree in 382AD
Then it was submitted to North Africa, Hippo(393) and Carthage (397) for debate and analysis by fine theological minds there…(This is where Augustine came from) Reaffirmed both times and then sent back to the Pope for ratification.
All this while fighting off heresy like Arianism and gnosticism.
So the Holy Spirit worked through these Catholic men to give us the correct NT.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
And, I might add, that a book can not be scripture for a thousand years, then suddenly not be scripture just because one guy with his following says so. This would be the equivalent of protestant leaders gathering and removing 7 books from their bible in the year 2517AD. By what authority would they be doing this?
C
commenter
Guest
As a social worker who spent lots of time with agencies and academia, I have seen the kinds of positions, or “canons” that come out of consensus processes. I have also seen the kinds of canons that come out of some centralized hierarchy.
Looking at the finished product here:
- a powerful decision to open the canon of Scripture,
- selection of a very few books, rejecting most - and
- a powerful decision to close the canon -
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
The Nag Hammadi manuscripts and the gospel of Thomas tend toward the gnostic, who of course considered themselves Christian, although the Universal/Catholic Church considered the gnostics to be heretics. But the gnostics thought of those writings as scripture!
The gospel of Peter we do know was read in certain churches as scripture, but was then prohibited by the bishop of that diocese on the basis that certain passages might have a gnostic interpretation.
Scholarly consensus for determining the canon? The trouble is, scholarly consensus is simply human opinion. One would think more than opinion should be our standard for what constitutes inspired scripture. Hebrews was accepted into the canon on the idea that it was written by Paul after all. However, scholarly opinion today does not know who wrote it, but definitely not Paul. Also modern scholarly opinion feels that certain of Paul’s epistles are forgeries, and so are the letters of Peter, probably written in the 2nd century.
A Baptist minister in his book on the canon asks the question, “Why should the church today be bound by decisions about the canon made in the 3rd and 4th centuries?” Indeed, why?
D
dawid
Guest
Dear susanlo the answer is simple: Jesus commanded that it be so!
“Binding and loosing” is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.
This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.
In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives this authority over his Church to Peter: “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
In Matthew 18:18, he gives the power to all the apostles: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This singling out of Peter to bestow on him an authority which is later to be given to all the apostles shows Peter’s preeminence within the apostolic college. What the apostles as a whole possessed as leaders of the Church, Peter possessed as an individual.
Of course, he, as the earthly head of the Church, also possessed powers which all the other apostles, even collectively, didn’t possess: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19).
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-phrase-binding-and-loosing-as-mentioned-in-matthew-1619-and-matthew-181
C
commenter
Guest
A college teacher preparing his class considers the possible (name removed by moderator)ut of hundreds of scholars. But really it is only one **authoritative **person, selecting a few sources here, rejecting very many potential sources there, that makes the decision what should be taught.
The Magisterium is like that authority-teacher, accepting the (name removed by moderator)ut of councils of Hippo and Carthage (not other councils), weighing the (name removed by moderator)ut of this scholar (not others), considering this ancient potential canon fragment (not others), applying this or that criterion (not other criteria).
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Great post:thumbsup: dawid
Jesus also commissioned Peter singularly to feed and tend His flock until Jesus returned. The tending of Jesus flock and feeding the flock of Jesus Christ manifest’s itself in the canon of the bible books protected by the Holy Spirit. Others may have toyed with God’s divine providence, but Peter is Rock who Jesus Christ builds His Church.
P
Peter_J
Guest
D
dawid
Guest
The principle of unity is important! Separation is a scandal.
Jesus created one Church which was termed “Ekklesia Katilikos” by the Ignatius the bishop of Antioch in 107 AD.
The Catholic Church considers all Christians as part of the Church. The protestant groups are considered separated brothers and sisters in Christ.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi Dawid. I think some on this site might take issue with you about “The Catholic Church considers all Christians as part of the Church” … but we’ll see I guess.
P.S. I think we all (well, not counting the most hardcore traditionalists, e.g. SSPV) can agree that the Church “subsists in the Catholic Church”, as that’s what Vatican II told us.
P.S. I think we all (well, not counting the most hardcore traditionalists, e.g. SSPV) can agree that the Church “subsists in the Catholic Church”, as that’s what Vatican II told us.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi rc,
But why? Did they have a council ? What formality was used in discernment , and by whom, which tribe etc. ?
Maybe such ‘‘looseness’’ is stronger than stricter formality(council/formal magisterium) , seeing how it was *not *disputed.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
partly , , as in other places/forms.
W
Wannano
Guest
It is wonderful that all Christians are considered to be part of the Church as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. Either that is the official stance of the Catholic Church or it isn’t. Would you mind confirming it with some supporting documentation?
As a descendant of former heretics I would like to know what we as protestant groups have done or changed in the last 500 years that now gives us the privilege of being part of the Church.
Thanks.
- Status