Did Council almost reject the book of Revelation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pax_Tibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pax_Tibi

Guest
My first attempt at posting.

There were a lot of early “scriptures” and at some point each was judged worthy or not to be included in the final Christian Testament. This was finalized at a church council 300/400? years after Christ’s Ascension. Many were contested and not included, one, the book of Revelation, was contested, and I understand had a tough time making it.

• Is it true that the book of Revelation had a difficult time making the final cut? Why?

• Since the Church “edited” the N.T., does it still have the right and power to edit it further if need be?

Thank you,
Pax Tibi
 
The Book of Revelation, as the Epistles of Peter, James, and John all had difficulties in the canonization process. Why? Obviously because a sizable amount of Bishops felt that these writings were not inspired by God.

The Council of Trent decided the Canon, and listed some other books as Non-Canonical. These books could never be added to the NT Canon. I wouldn’t imagine that any known writings could possibly be added to the NT Canon, else they would have been by now.

If, however, the Church should come across some previously unknown writings from, say Paul or Peter or John, then they can consider those writings for Canonization.

I would imagine the odds of that are pretty small, though.
 
Since the Church “edited” the N.T., does it still have the right and power to edit it further if need be?
Click to expand...
Well she compiled it, as with any other compiler, she arguably has the right to modify in the light of new information.

There are other books which form part of the Canon but which are not included in the New Testament.

She may decide at some point in the future to include these 🙂
 
Sixtus said:
Well she compiled it, as with any other compiler, she arguably has the right to modify in the light of new information.

There are other books which form part of the Canon but which are not included in the New Testament.

She may decide at some point in the future to include these 🙂
Click to expand...
What books form part of the Canon but are not included in the NT?:confused:
 
Thanks you two.

The reason I asked these questions was that I think the book of Revelations is a distraction to the rest of the NT. It is too reminiscent of the OT.

I’m of the opinion that Jesus fulfilled the OT and as Christians we believe He is the New Covenant. If the OT is to be referenced it would solely be used to prove Jesus is the Messiah, our Savior and truly God and truly Man. The only source of our dogma and preaching should come from the Christian Covenant.

I am obviously not a scholar, I only reached this opinion from listening to Fundamentalists, with whom I confess I have a problem, preaching predominantly from the OT and the Book of Revelation.

I was just wondering if the Bishops were capable of revisiting the Scriptures in light of current situations.

Once again, thanks.
Pax Tibi
 
My understanding is that Revelations was encluded over the the protest of the Eastern Bishops and on the insistance of St Augustine. I’m told it is not encluded in the lectuary of the Eastern Divine Litergy.
“Its never used in readings”
 
It is untrue to say the council nearly rejected the Book of Revelation. There were parts of it which were subjected to discussion, prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance and the text ‘won the day’.

The rest is history 🙂

It is interesting though that some sects try to use the Book of Revelation against the Church who decided the very texts they quote, should be in the Bible. This under the inspirition of the Holy Spirit.

What they are saying is ‘Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the teaching authority given to that church, she is not the church that Christ founded’! ‘She had no authority to include in the book of Revelation the very texts we are now using against her’!

‘We can use this text against her because the Holy Spirit was with her to guide her to put those texts into the bible so that we could come along 1800 years later and declare her invalid’!

INTERESTING THEORY. Don’t think it holds much water though 😛
 
Sixtus said:
Well she compiled it, as with any other compiler, she arguably has the right to modify in the light of new information.

There are other books which form part of the Canon but which are not included in the New Testament.

**She may decide at some point in the future to include these **🙂
Click to expand...
I think not. Trent closed the canon. No new additions in the future.
 
quasimodo said:
I think not. Trent closed the canon. No new additions in the future.
Click to expand...
Although there will probably be no no additions (I’d be willing to take bets on it), this is not true.

Should some new work be discovered that is validated to be authentically written by, say Peter or Paul, it COULD be considered for canonization.
 
NotWorthy said:
Although there will probably be no no additions (I’d be willing to take bets on it), this is not true.

Should some new work be discovered that is validated to be authentically written by, say Peter or Paul, it COULD be considered for canonization.
Click to expand...
Hmmm . . . I would have thought that the canon was closed.

There is a novel The Word by Irving Wallace about the discovery of a Gospel of James which turns out to be a forgery.
 
didymus said:
Hmmm . . . I would have thought that the canon was closed.

There is a novel The Word by Irving Wallace about the discovery of a Gospel of James which turns out to be a forgery.
Click to expand...
Remember, the papal and magisterial infallibility is a negative charism. They can’t say, “This is all the inspired Word of God that was ever written”. They can examine books and determine whether they are inspired or not, but that’s as far as there authority goes.
 
It is interesting that the Muratorian canon (170-200) somewhat considers both the Apocalypse of John (Revelation) and Peter to be inspired, but mentions that the latter is not to be read in church. In any case, the apocalypse of Peter is dated to the first half of the second century.
 
Pax_Tibi said:
Thanks you two.

The reason I asked these questions was that I think the book of Revelations is a distraction to the rest of the NT. It is too reminiscent of the OT.

I’m of the opinion that Jesus fulfilled the OT and as Christians we believe He is the New Covenant. If the OT is to be referenced it would solely be used to prove Jesus is the Messiah, our Savior and truly God and truly Man. The only source of our dogma and preaching should come from the Christian Covenant.

I am obviously not a scholar, I only reached this opinion from listening to Fundamentalists, with whom I confess I have a problem, preaching predominantly from the OT and the Book of Revelation.

I was just wondering if the Bishops were capable of revisiting the Scriptures in light of current situations.

Once again, thanks.
Pax Tibi
Click to expand...
The Revelation of St. John most definitely reflects the Christian Covenant! 🙂 May I suggest Dr. Scott Hahn’s wonderful explication of its liturgical significance, The Lamb’s Supper?

amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591
 
I think not. Trent closed the canon. No new additions in the future.
Click to expand...
Should some new work be discovered that is validated to be authentically written by, say Peter or Paul, it COULD be considered for canonization.
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent is a servant of the Holy Spirit, not His master. 🙂

If the Holy Spirit wished a new revelation to become canonized then the Church, as obedient servant, would have a duty to comply.

The servant is NOT greater than the master.
 
Sixtus said:
The Council of Trent is a servant of the Holy Spirit, not His master. 🙂

If the Holy Spirit wished a new revelation to become canonized then the Church, as obedient servant, would have a duty to comply.

The servant is NOT greater than the master.
Click to expand...
OK, you say “Toe-May-Toe”, I say “Toe-Mah-Toe”.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Church in everything she teaches. I know that, and it is a given in the Church, so “slap me if with a wet noodle” for not stating the obviuous. 😉

BTW, thanks for the correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top