P
pablope
Guest
Trues…these ECFs always had a qualifier to seek the guidance of the Church, or follow the Church, not my own opinion on the matter…and not decide for yourself what is canon and what is not. Quite a big difference.
- Status
D
dronald
Guest
This all helps for sure, and I appreciate the effort but it still doesn’t explain why it wasn’t closed the same way for the East. If the councils were considered Catholic (universal) then the East should have been with them. It should be closed. There should be no question.I think this will answer your query and make it clear:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2
there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. … Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. … By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.”
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
How can I trust which tradition got it right?
T
Tommy999
Guest
Hi Robyn p,
Good questions. It got me thinking, which can be dangerous for those around me especially when I am operating farm equipment or power tools.
- Some folks like me never gave it much thought before. We just used the Bibles that were given to us by the church as children or that we bought at the local Christian Book Store, which in my case was owned by Protestants. It didn’t have the deuterocanonical books in those Bibles so we just went with what we had and focused on what we had in our Bibles.
I asked my Sunday School teachers about it and they said that those ‘other’ books that were in the Catholic Bible had value but were not considered inspired to the same degree as the main books of the Bible were. That’s about it.
- Not sure how to answer that except to say that the Reformation shook up the Christian world in many ways, and I assumed this difference was just fallout from it. Once again, I trusted the leaders of the church that I grew up in – the same way Catholics trusted their leaders, I assume.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hello JonNC its always a comfort see you here
There were two Eusebius. Never the less, the Antilegomena being subscribed here not only was used to dispute books being placed on a canon list for the Church to declare, but many other books which did not make the canon of the Church council.
Eusebius and others never speak alone for the whole of Christendom for the Church council to follow. Those who remained in full communion with the Church councils findings and canon followed the Church, the Church never follows Eusebius or others who questioned the pre-canon or the post-canon of the bible books.
For the record the Church councils to canon the bible books for Her Liturgy, She does not canon the bible books to be used as the only standard of faith.
You raise a good point here, but the context of Antilegomena used by ECF’s is not the same act recorded by the Protestant reformers of relabeling or rejecting the DC books.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
here’s a perspective that may help here; When Liturgy is the short answer;
Quote:
SyroMalankara;11973490]Not sure what the last sentence means in relation to this topic, my point is that all the varying Canons are equally valid, as long as they have Synodal approval by the Church. The Armenian Canon, used by Armenian Catholics and Orthodox alike; the Syriac Canon, used by Syriac Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Syro-Malankara Catholics, Syriac Orthodox, and Malankara Orthodox alike; etc. The varying Canons were never a point of contention within the Communion of Churches, even when they were different for each of the Churches - as long as Communion and unity of Faith were maintained.
Quote;
Gabriel of 12
It should be noted however that the Western Catholic liturgical canon laws are separate from the Eastern Catholic liturgical canon laws, which is relative to the subject you raised.
The other question is why the diverse canonical books that are used in each ones liturgy? That is a subject that takes on a case by case study.
Trying to keep it short here; Before the persecution laws against the Catholic Church were lifted by Pagan Rome. Many of these Church communities you mentioned suffered and were secluded from the Popes and other apostolic sees. During which time, some of them introduced later writings into their liturgies that were proven to be Gnostic writings and false gospels with original apostles names attached.
Those who followed Marcion’s teachings removed the Old Testament all together, when Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel and other New Testament books. It was subjects like these and many others which included the Jews trying to discredit Jesus as a false prophet who quoted from the Greek text of the LXX and not the Hebrew Text, which moved the Church to council for the canonization of her liturgical books.
If your Church Father’s present at the Church councils could prove their liturgical books met the Canon, many of these were easily proven, others were rejected and proven heretical or not inspired. It is from these early councils that heretics and heterodoxy was exposed but that is another subject.
Then comes the subject of capital “T” Tradition and small “t” that allows the freedom of each apostolic successor to maintain their Liturgy from these traditions which introduces the diverse canonical books used in each Apostolic See, that other Church communities were already following since their original apostle evangelized them. This subject introduces Liturgical practice according to each ones culture and language that maintained it’s apostolic authenticity which proved it’s Liturgical canon.
Universal = Catholic Canon. I relate this term to the Canon that was approved multiple times in Church councils throughout the centuries beginning from 382 a.d. This Canon was approved when the Empire was one and all the apostolic sees world wide were still in full communion with the Chair of Peter as one.
Each time the books came into question, the Church council’s, and the Church maintained the Canon when the Popes ratified them in different centuries, settling the disputes in every age. Trent finally had enough with Luther’s renaming the Deutero books as Apocrypha, that She placed a self anathema to anyone else who ever disputes them again.
This present canon is unchanged since 382 a.d officially declared them canonical, which is a miracle in itself, proves their authenticity, that survived every onslaught man could ever deliver to the Catholic Church’s canon of Inspired books of the bible, unchanged to today.
It is very important to understand that those diverse Catholic communities you mentioned. Were already practicing their Apostolic liturgies long before the Church canonized the bible books.
Many of these Catholic communities have diverse canon books early on, because many of them did not receive or practice in their ancient liturgies the whole of the canonized books yet, nor did the Popes or Church council force the canon upon their liturgies, they maintain their Orthodoxy here which is apostolic and True. Their canons alone proves their apostolic liturgy authenticity, it never discounts their authenticity of canon books in each ones apostolic liturgy.
cont;
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
cont;
Rome never discounts these diverse canons used in each Apostolic successor’s liturgy. Because their Liturgies are apostolic and were in practice long before all the books were canonized. Their diverse Liturgical canon of books authenticates their Apostolicity and Orthodoxy.
Rome has always used the whole of the Canon, because Peter and his apostolic successors who still had the ringing of the apostles voices in their ears (Clement, Ignatius etc.) were in direct contact with these writings from the apostles, when other apostolic sees under persecution did not receive these books in their apostolic liturgies.
Thus the whole of the Canon maintains Romes Orthodoxy from Peter and Paul distinctively from other Apostolic sees.
I hope my commentary helps see through all the diverse canons used in each Catholic community you mentioned, is profound and beautiful. Rome does not view these canons in the least negative, but very Orthodox.
Peace be with you
Rome never discounts these diverse canons used in each Apostolic successor’s liturgy. Because their Liturgies are apostolic and were in practice long before all the books were canonized. Their diverse Liturgical canon of books authenticates their Apostolicity and Orthodoxy.
Rome has always used the whole of the Canon, because Peter and his apostolic successors who still had the ringing of the apostles voices in their ears (Clement, Ignatius etc.) were in direct contact with these writings from the apostles, when other apostolic sees under persecution did not receive these books in their apostolic liturgies.
Thus the whole of the Canon maintains Romes Orthodoxy from Peter and Paul distinctively from other Apostolic sees.
I hope my commentary helps see through all the diverse canons used in each Catholic community you mentioned, is profound and beautiful. Rome does not view these canons in the least negative, but very Orthodox.
Peace be with you
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
How exciting, and how beautiful.
I have always wondered this myself. WHO decided for all of Protestantism that these books were not inspired? I have never been given an answer for that…
Why don’t Protestants think these books are inspired today?
Because they haven’t been seen as being inspired since the Reformation; and to change their mind and admit that they ARE in fact inspired, would be to admit that the Catholic Church is correct and the “Reformed” Canon is wrong.
Also, as much as many hard-core Protestants hate the word: TRADITION. “That’s the way it’s ALWAYS been”, some say.
My wife was raised Protestant, and had no idea those books ever existed. I never knew Protestant translations of the Bible DIDN’T have them! I wish I had a video of us at holy mass the day there was a reading from the Book of Wisdom…
Lector: A reading from the Book of Wisdom.
Wife (to me): The book of what???
Me (to my wife): Wisdom. You’ve never heard of the Book of Wisdom?
Wife: No!
Me: I thought you knew the Bible? (Her father was a Pentecostal minister)
Wife: I do and I have never heard of it… It’s not in any Bible that I’ve ever seen.
Me: It’s not?
Wife: No.
Me: Hmm.
As soon as we got home, two Bibles come out and we go through them together. That was the day we BOTH discovered that there is a seven book discrepancy between the two. That was quite a day for us…
She’s Catholic now, and the Old Testament reading at our wedding was from Tobit.
Paul
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
Thank you for that, Novocastrian. One of my pet peeves is people conflating deuterocanonical and apocryphal.
There are no deuterocanonical NT books. Any book not in the NT canon is apocryphal.
There are seven deuterocanonical books in the Catholic OT that are not in the Protestant canon. Everything else that is not in the Protestant canon is apocryphal.
Paul
B
Bradthecatholic
Guest
I think the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has seven extra books in their New Testament.
B
Bradthecatholic
Guest
Actually they have eight. I’ll list them.
- The Book of Order.
- The Book of Herald
- Gitsew
- Abtilis
- The I Book of Dominos
- The II Book of Dominos
- The Book of Clement
- Didascalia
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
You’re right; I should have made clear that I was talking only about Catholic belief.
I have only the utmost respect and affection for our Orthodox brethren (the other lung). I pray always that we may one day re-unite. What a powerful testimony that would be to the world!
Paul
B
Bradthecatholic
Guest
Yep, but the Ethiopian Orthodox are Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. They are the non-Chaldean Orthodox. So it may be harder to get them to re-unite with us than it would the Eastern Orthodox.
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
One can only hope and pray.
The man who owns the convenience store down the street is a Coptic Christian from Egypt. He and I have commiserated on several occasions about how sad it is that the Christian world is divided into sects and cannot unite to face the great evils and opposition that the world poses to the truth of Christ.
Why can’t people like us determine the unity of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths? What is wrong with us Christians, and more importantly what is wrong with our leaders, that we cannot set aside the historical and (really very small) doctrinal differences that separate us?
Why do we leave the world wallowing in disbelief, when all we Christians need to do is unite in love so that, as Jesus prayed and declared, the world will know and believe that He was sent by the Father (John 17:23)?
It is so sad, and so unnecessary.
Paul
B
Bradthecatholic
Guest
Like you said, one can only hope and pray.
P
pablope
Guest
Gabriel gave you a good summary or response in post 83 and 84.
Just to add some more…the East later adopted the same NT, but some had more books in the OT.
Again, from Trent:the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”
Since the Bible canon is not a point of contention, the OT canon of some was based on what had been traditionally read in their churches, depending on what was in the Septuagint they had received. But it was not less than what is in the Catholic OT today.
And one more thing…why is it not a point of contention…because the authority of the Church resides in the bishops, as it has traditionally been, and not on the Bible.
You asked…
Follow the example of St. Paul:Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running
And later expounded by St. Optatus:
You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit
B
benhur
Guest
Being "democratic’’ or having equality of every member does not rule out each having different functions, even leaders. …“for it pleased the apostles and elders and the whole church to send chosen men…and they wrote letters with this greeting: the apostles and elders and brethren send greetings to the* brethren* in Antioch…” Acts 15
Really ?
Because God inspires a writing does not mean it must be Holy Writ.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Gotcha. I see what you’re saying now.
Thanks for that link by the way. Very interesting.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Thank you Tommy.Hi Robyn p,
Good questions. It got me thinking, which can be dangerous for those around me especially when I am operating farm equipment or power tools.
In short, I suppose we trusted our leaders in the same way Catholics trusted theirs. It was never a big deal to me or to most people I knew. Sure, I wondered about it a little from time to time when I got to High School and talked religion a little bit with Catholic friends and saw their Bible had additional books in it.
- Some folks like me never gave it much thought before. We just used the Bibles that were given to us by the church as children or that we bought at the local Christian Book Store, which in my case was owned by Protestants. It didn’t have the deuterocanonical books in those Bibles so we just went with what we had and focused on what we had in our Bibles.
I asked my Sunday School teachers about it and they said that those ‘other’ books that were in the Catholic Bible had value but were not considered inspired to the same degree as the main books of the Bible were. That’s about it.
I apologize if that is an unsatisfactory answer but I tried to answer to the best of my ability.
- Not sure how to answer that except to say that the Reformation shook up the Christian world in many ways, and I assumed this difference was just fallout from it. Once again, I trusted the leaders of the church that I grew up in – the same way Catholics trusted their leaders, I assume.
That was a good answer, I appreciated it.I think you made a good point that both Catholics and Protestants have to trust their leaders to determine which books are inspired or not. It seems we all are relying on Tradition in the end. There’s really no other way.
- Status