Does everyone accept the Catholic Church right to modify the bible?

[Zooey]

Hypothethical questions usually do nothing more than get people all worked up over nothing. No new letter by Paul is ever going to be found. The canon of the Bible is set–the Church set it forever. There really is nothing to discuss here. It’s like asking if God can lift a rock too heavy for him.

But if a new text came to light then it would be the sole jurisdiction of her who codified the original to decide whether to include.
Most Protestants whether they accept the Catholic Church or not, accept her codification. Seeings the Catholic Church is the SAME church as it was 1700 years ago, I merely ask would they accept her right to modify or re-codify.

In a word, no.
Because, the Catholic Church is not the same as it was 1700 years ago…Before you jump down my neck, let me explain: The Catholic Church is no longer catholic. There are Protestants–heck, there are the Orthodox, first & foremost, who are no longer a part of the Catholic Church. (Watch the EOs get me for that!)

It is interesting that a lot of the alleged non-canonical gospels are universally rejected by all denoms and not just the CC.

I think this Christian solidarity shows how close are our ties, not how loose are our divisions.

I agree with All for Him that His Holiness would call for a general council of all Church denoms leaders and a decision would undoubtedly reflect the views of all Christondom. The CC does after all speak of 'our seperated breathren and I think the emphasis is not on ‘seperated’ but ‘breathren’.

There you go!!

The whole idea of such a thing is absolutely nonsensical. Besides, the apocrypha doesn’t belong with the rest of scripture because these books were not originally written in Hebrew. I can’t imagine anything newly founded to be treated in any other fashion.

:dts:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

How is that any different from why you accept the Bible Canon that you do now?

Because back then there was unity.

 

[puzzleannie]

If new information came to light which contradicted or challenged, arguably it would be for the Catholic Church to decide whether to incorporate it into the New Testament.

the only “new Information” which could challenge or contradict the bible would be divine revelalation, and that is not possible because Divine Revelation is full and complete in the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Given the fact the Catholic Church compiled the bible around 300 AD and the problems the Bishops had in deciding which books were part of the canon and which were not, some parts of the Book of Revelation nearly never made it into the bible.

If new information came to light which contradicted or challenged, arguably it would be for the Catholic Church to decide whether to incorporate it into the New Testament.

How would non-Catholics react to this

I dont think non-catholics could really say anything as they have already rejected books in their new versions of the Bible only Catholic Bibles have the full book load anyore.

 

[exoflare]

Because back then there was unity.

Not in the way you might think. Even from the first days of Christianity, different individuals within the Church had slightly different ideas of which books should have been accepted as part of the Canon. And they were well within their right to do so, as the Church had not conclusively established it yet.

The difference in that time is, once the leadership of the Church came down to a final say on the Canon, everyone in the Church had to accept their decision regardless of what their personal opinions were before.

 

[Erich]

none of the books of the NT were originally written in Hebrew either

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (“Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: “It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume.” This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew’s Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome (“De Viris Ill.”, xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.

 

[Erich]

(continued)

From Wikipedia:

Although the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel has been traditionally ascribed to Matthew the Evangelist, a tax collector who became an Apostle of Jesus. The surviving testimony of the church fathers is unanimous in this view, and the tradition had been accepted by Christians at least as early as the 2nd century up to modern times. In addition, the title “According to Matthew” is found in the earliest codexes[1], which date to the fourth century. Beginning in the 18th century, however, scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today the majority agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. Matthew primarily writes for the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians and Gentiles who were, at least partly, Torah observant. [2]

In 1911, the Pontifical Biblical Commission[3] affirmed that Matthew was the first gospel written, that it was written by the evangelist Matthew, and that it was written in Aramaic[4].

Also, Original Language of Matthew’s Gospel? is an 1877 argument for a Hebrew original.

 

[colliric]

(continued)

From Wikipedia:

Also, Original Language of Matthew’s Gospel? is an 1877 argument for a Hebrew original.

If a Hebrew manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew is ever found, it doesn’t change anything, the reason being that the same gospel, while it may be in Greek and translated from, is already in the NT. Therefore under canon rules it can simply be “inserted” where it was originally anyway as a Greek translated version of it. Whoever wrote the Greek translation, which could have been Matthew anyway, probably did a great job translating it(after all it is a gospel!) so it would for all practical purposes be 99%(excepting the whole Petra thing, which isn’t necessary in English) the same.

 

[Erich]

Agreed, I was merely responding to the “none of the books of the NT were originally written in Hebrew either” assertion.

 

[exoflare]

I had heard that there might be a Hebrew original for Matthew, but I thought it was just speculation. If not, then I stand corrected.

My point still stands, though, to the one I was originally replying to… Just because a book was not written in Hebrew does not somehow discount it’s inspiration.

 

[Cardinalsong]

Hypothethical questions usually do nothing more than get people all worked up over nothing. No new letter by Paul is ever going to be found. The canon of the Bible is set–the Church set it forever. There really is nothing to discuss here. It’s like asking if God can lift a rock too heavy for him. :yawn:

I agree with you Della. Even if some “new” letter was found it would probably be a credible as the Gospel according to Judas.

It just isn’t going to happen.:nope:

 

[rmcmullan]

This must be some variation of my earlier question: What if the Angel moroni appeared to the Pope and revealed to him the Book of Mormon.

I thought that all public revelation was completed and closed?

 

[Traveller1534]

The pope can say or claim that anything has taken place by the holy spirit and because of his infallibility it is believed to be a matter of faith in the Catholic church and a required belief amongst the so called faithful, so why would that be any different?? (The whole thing would scare the bloody heck out of me if I were still Catholic!)

 

[Pedro]

The pope can say or claim that anything has taken place by the holy spirit and because of his infallibility it is believed to be a matter of faith in the Catholic church and a required belief amongst the so called faithful, so why would that be any different?? (The whole thing would scare the bloody heck out of me if I were still Catholic!)

I’m afraid you sorely lack understanding of the doctrine of papal infalliability. The pope will not be able to add to the canon of scripture because that has already been declared closed by the Magisterium of the Church.

Any new discoveries, assuming they are are found to be authentic, will probably be declared as private revelation. Look at the prophesies of Fatima which the Church has approved and declared as authentic.

 

[Traveller1534]

What about the apocrypha???

 

[Pedro]

What about the apocrypha???

If you mean the OT deuterocanonicals, are you saying they were not already part of the canons of the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the 4th century?

Kindly explain then why they are in the OT of the Orthodox Churches who had separated from Rome centuries before Trent, and also in the canon of the Alexandrian Jews who follow the LXX?

 

[Traveller1534]

sir, you mis-stated yourself again. The Orthodox church didn’t split from Rome. The church split into two entities, one in Constantinople and one in Rome. The Roman Catholic church was and is not the early church

 

[Pedro]

sir, you mis-stated yourself again. The Orthodox church didn’t split from Rome. The church split into two entities, one in Constantinople and one in Rome. The Roman Catholic church was and is not the early church

I’d appreciate it if you can kindly answer my questions before jumping to another topic.

 

[Traveller1534]

This was part of the topic. I cannot continue onto something else until we have an understanding on what you stated plainly about the split in the 11th century. The Orthodox church didn’t break from Rome, the church broke into two separate entities, one of them being Rome and the Roman Catholic church was not and is not the early church, can we agree on that or not?

 

[colliric]

sir, you mis-stated yourself again. The Orthodox church didn’t split from Rome. The church split into two entities, one in Constantinople and one in Rome. The Roman Catholic church was and is not the early church

The Orthodox church excommunicated Rome, before Rome responded with excommunication. The reason of cause was that the Pope decreed that he was prime, as the bishop of rome, the position that Peter held, he was therefore the earthly head of the church.

The orthodox church split from Rome because of this doctrine clarification, Rome did not initiate the separation proceedings, it simply declared that it was Prime and the bishop of Constantinople didn’t like that and immediately excommunicated Rome first when Rome sent it’s Messenger to deliver the news to him. Rome returned the favor and the church split into two entities, which it sadly remains… However it has become quite clear, the roman assertion is correct, Peter did come to Rome as his tomb was uncovered underneath the Vatican as tradition dictated and he was indeed the first Pope, and he was the lead Apostle. therefore the catholic church remains the true church of god… slowly the gap has reclosed between the two so much so that it may be possible for a reunification within perhaps even our lifetimes.