No communion, including the Catholic Church counts them as ecumenical councils. How could they, local synods, be authoritative for the whole Church?
Jon
- Status
Jon
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I appreciate your response!
Although you must understand, your response still considers living humans, or at the very least ,“not yet dead” humans.
Also, in the time of Macc. things like Last rites and so did not exist. Or at least not in the way Catholics define it.
In all those Catechism rules, there is one cut of time, and that is death. So to me for the soldiers in Macc, they are already dead. Yes, they could have confessed to some priest (which had not yet existed) or have been so incapacitated that they may have had confession by desire? Maybe probable, but you must agree very highly unlikely?
And still, they were Jewish, I’m not a Jewish expert but help me if those were actually Jewish customs? Would they have thought that according to a Catholic understanding. Don’t get me wrong, Pray for the dead, that is all okay. But reconciling that with Catholic doctrine, I don’t see the match. Therefore I can’t see it as proof to anything. Praying for the dead may still be possible, that I agree with, that verse is just not the proof.
Regards
R
rcwitness
Guest
But Scripture is Universal. How does anyone (or Council outside of an ecumenical Council) have the authority to claim a Canon? If there was no ecumenical council, we should all say, you might have the complete Word of God, or we might have it, or they might have it, but none of us have been lawfully told by God.
C
campeador
Guest
Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition:
Ver. 45. With godliness. Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy; either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance, or might have repented of their sin at least at their death. (Challoner) — Charity requires us to judge thus, when there are no positive proofs to the contrary. (Calmet) — Pope John VIII answered the bishops of France, that those who died fighting against infidels were saved. (Mabil. T. iii. An. Ben.) — Judas might entertain the like hopes, though they are not always well grounded. (Haydock)
Ver. 46. Holy. This text is so clear, that our adversaries judge it best to deny the book to be canonical. As that has been authentically proved, (Preface) we shall only add that the Greek version, though differing in many points, is here as express as the Vulgate, (Worthington) 45. “considering that the best grace is laid up for those who sleep in piety. Holy and pious is the thought. (Haydock) Wherefore he made reconciliation (or expiation) for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin,” or punishment due to it. (Worthington) — Sin is often taken for the punishment; and this effect of mortal sin may be remitted in purgatory, when the person has sincerely repented in this life. (Haydock) — To pass over other proofs, we will only mention St. Augustine (hær. liii.) and St. Bernard, (Cant. lxvi.) who plainly account those “heretics,” who deny purgatory. It is also worthy of notice that Judas, who acted thus charitably, was the high priest and defender of the true faith; and that the Jews still pray for the dead, as the book Mahzor, published by Genebrard, 1569, evinces. There they say, “Let him rest in peace,” and “ye angels of peace come forth to meet him.” But this is acknowledged by Munster and Fagius, (in Deuteronomy xiv.) and by Whitaker. — Sins. Go to 1 Machabees vi. 18. (Worthington)
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It does not have to be ecumenical for the Church to accept it as true. The Pope can declare it to be so if he wants to.
So it was authoritative to the whole Catholic Church at that point in time (fourth century).
I have asked this question in another thread. Would be glad if other Protestants can give their thought on it too:
Who decided the content of the Bible that you have chosen now?
How do you know they are correct or even infallible?
If your church did not decide on it, what is the reason that you to trust the person(s) that did?
I don’t think anyone does, which is why I think that we have to look at the totality of beliefs of the Fathers, the historic view of the books, and treat them with respect to hoiw they have been viewed.
Jon
But his declaration only applies to those members of the Church that are in communion with him. It has influence on others, but he doesn’t speak for the whole Church.
Well, there’s a question about that because eastern patriarchates seem to have had a broarder canon all along.
God has the final say, but I don’t think that is your question. My personal view is that I am a western Christian, and the typical, historic canon in the west is 73 books, but I also recognize that books within that canon have been disputed by some people we would consider saints today, and I think it is appropriate to evaluate those books in that way. I also think that we can read and learn from books that are not considered canon in the west, the Prayer of Manasseh being just one.
How do we know Trent’s declaration of the canon is correct or infallible?
It seems to me the broader the consensus of Christian leaders guided by the Spirit, historically and today, the better chance of being right.
I think I answered this.
Jon
R
Reuben_J
Guest
We can juggle our word here but in the fourth century there were only about two churches - the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church or whatever you want to name them.
The fact is the Catholic Bible had its origin, which was from that Council. Forget about it being used earlier than that. Now if other churches had different set of Bible, at least they can tell from where it came from. That is what I want to know.
We regard it as infallible because that is what Jesus promised us. So at least there is some certainty about it.
I can understand if you do not believe it is infallible. That’s why I was asking, just to know your take on it. To me it does not make sense if a Christian doubts about the infallibility of his Bible but since you are okay with it, of course I have to accept your position in being so.
The work of a saint needs not be infallible without the authority of the Church that commissioned him. There were many learned individuals along the history of Christianity but their work needed not be infallible unless they acted upon/with authority, otherwise it would be just their individual work which you rightly said, we, of course, can study them.
I’ll let individuals more familiar with the canons of various EO churches answer the origin of their larger canons. My point was that they were indeed part of the unified Church Catholic, and their canons are different. Apparently, they didn’t recognize the local councils at Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.
I would agree that the canon declared at Trent is, AFAIK, the same as the local councils mentioned.
I am certain of your belief about that.
I wouldn’t say I have doubts. I would say I have tremendous respect for the saints of the early Church and their opinions.
Gottcha
Jon
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi Jon. Thanks for the reply. I don’t mean to impose on you those questions. I am only interested on the thought on non-Catholic on them. If you feel you want to answer them, it will give me understanding on your take.
#1. Which Bible version that you use or being used by your church? How many books are there?
#2. What is the reason/justification behind the choosing of this Bible?
#3.Do you regard its compilation (the books included therein) infallible? Or that some should not be there or others that should be there are not included?
#4. Are these books the true word of God?
Reuben
R
rcwitness
Guest
Hmmm… I’m not sure what that means, in the end. Obviously you chose a communion, and that communion holds to a Canon. Why did they choose that canon? Do they think it could be wrong? Do they say it is an Infallible decision?
I chose a communion who claims to have declared with the authority of the Whole Church (as opposed to a unanimous concensus of the Whole Church). I think, at least the Catholic Church owns up to the authority required to claim a Canon of Scripture.
But I understand that arriving at the Tradition of the Sacred Books was not just Church authority saying, “These are the books! Nothing more, nothing less!” No, it was a process of doing some of what you proposed. Look to the totality of the fathers, discern the history, consider the content, ect. I think it’s two aspect here. One, in collecting and discerning, while the other, is Confirming and binding.
K
Kmon23
Guest
The EO canon is primarily derived from the usage of the Septuagint, which includes a larger selection of texts for the Old Testament (although not all of the books in the Septuagint are in our canon). I’m no expert, but at least for Hippo and Carthage, most easterners probably didn’t know much about it, hence for all intents and purposes were more akin to local councils. If my memory serves correctly for example, it took a few more centuries after Hippo and Carthage for Revelation to be accepted in the East as part of the canon.
In the Eastern Churches (both prior to the schism and after) we don’t even read Revelation liturgically! Since it wasn’t recognized as part of the canon until much later and generally because of its genre of literature.
- the 73 book KJV
- understand that my membership in the APA is recent, so I’m still learning. A longer term Anglican might be more able.
- I’m very confident in them, in large part because the historic Church affirms them.
- yes
R
rcwitness
Guest
Wasn’t St Athanasius an Eastern Bishop?
K
Kmon23
Guest
Yes, I guess you may say that.
It’s interesting what he considered part of the canon. He had the 27 NT books, but had a rather different Old Testament canon (to both Catholics and Orthodox), such as the omission of Esther.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I’d love to know if he and St Damascus ever met and discussed Scripture! I am actually inclined NOT to accept the Damascus list as genuinely from him.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Do you mean even to the present day?
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,*who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.*Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein
P
Peter_J
Guest
Since you mentioned them, is the Protestant belief that those men are all in Hell?
J
jmcrae
Guest
“Idolatry” would be if they were worshipping them and sacrificing to them as Gods.
Even if you don’t think it’s productive to pray to God on behalf of those who have died (either because there’s no such thing as life after death, or some other reason) I’m not seeing how it could be sinful.
Have you never prayed for a friend who died suddenly, in the hope that God could still help them?
- Status