If the Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did so many versions of the canon continue to circulate afterwards?

[benidict]

Quite true. Even my former rector, who is very evangelical and more of a protestant-thinking chap than catholic, accepted the deuterocanonical books and loved the apocrypha. The problem here is that you can get ten Anglicans in a room and they treat everything like a roarchach ink blot and interpret for themselves. History be damned, councils be damned, it’s an individualist approach and emotion, feeling, not logic or a link to the past. Anglicans are so diverse on the Eucharist that it’s chaos and coffee hour is about all I’ve seen they have in common. The ACNA, the “conservative” Anglican group in North America was founded basically on a disgust for gay marriage more than anything else. While I applaud their disgust, the problem is that they themselves are predominantly evangelicals and ACNA is becoming known as “Association of Calvinists in North America” and “Anglo Catholics Needn’t Attend.” The Catholic view of the Eucharist is not the Anglican. They have a Calvinist view. You are correct about Henry VIII, an amoral heathen and even worse was Thomas Cranmer, who possessed more moral cowardice than any man I’ve ever read about, who sanctioned and fought for the multiple divorces and executions of not only Henry’s wives but the oversight of executions of brave Catholic bishops and priest whom he watched being drawn and quartered to death. You also forget Elizabeth I who essentially turned the Church of England into a political compromise to appease and shut-up the Calvinists on one side and the pro-Catholic minorities on the other and try to make both sides happy. It’s like watching Clinton and the Republicans in the 1990’s, only imagine them creating a state church! Elizabeth did. Anglicanism owes more to Elizabeth and her deliberately vague and wishy-washy compromise than to Henry who was essentially a Catholic at heart whose hormones and greedy ambition made him go against his conscience and commit the unthinkable.

hi gurney. nice to see some back up on this, but im not trying to be mean to him. just didnt like his tone to another poster. have a very good friend who converted to anglicanism and is a priest. both of us came out of a baptist back ground. have more common ground with him than other protestants. i think it has to do with his decision more on cultrual grounds to joint the anglicans. i went with the
Catholics, for some of the same reasons he gravitated to the anglicans. Church history is a powerful tool. and the Church fathers. God bless you and yours.

 

[firstmode]

I wouldn’t be so quick to pin it all on the Protestants though. The Hebraic Jews never accepted the apocrypha as inspired still to this day and when St. Jerome was formulating the Latin Vulgate, he was reluctant to include those books in the same nature as the others.

Here is a list of many cannons, if not all of them:

bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170).
Melito (c. 170).
Origen (c. 240).
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324).
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350).
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360).
The Cheltenham List (c. 360).
Council of Laodicea (c. 363).
Letter of Athanasius (367).
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380).
Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380).
The “Apostolic Canons” (c. 380).
Epiphanius (c. 385).
Jerome (c. 390).
Augustine (c. 397).
Third Council of Carthage (397).
Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 400).
Codex Claromontanus (c. 400).
Letter of Innocent I (405).
Decree of Gelasius (c. 550).
Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (c. 550).
John of Damascus (c. 730).

Disputed Books of the Old Testament
The table below shows which of the disputed Old Testament books are included in Christian catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century. Y indicates that the book is plainly listed as Holy Scripture; N indicates that it is placed in an inferior class of books; M indicates that the terminology of the author may be construed as a reference to the book as Holy Scripture. An S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection. See notes on the authorities below.

bible-researcher.com/canon4.html

KEY

Esth. - Esther
Bar. - Baruch
Eccl. - Ecclesiasticus
Wisd. - Wisdom of Solomon
Tob. - Tobit
Jud. - Judith
Mac. - First and Second Maccabees

1. Greek Authors. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac.
   Melito 160 S S S S S S S
   Origen 225 Y M S S S S N
   Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y N N N N N
   Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y S S S S S
   Athanasius 367 N Y N N N N S
   Gregory of Nazianzus 380 S S S S S S S
   Amphilocius of Iconium 380 M S S S S S S
   Epiphanius 385 Y S N N S S S
   Stichometry of Niceph. 550 N Y N N N N N
   Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. 550 N S N N N N N
   Leontius 590 S S S S S S S
   List of the Sixty Books 650 N S N N N N N
   John of Damascus 730 Y S N N S S S
2. Syrian Greek. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac.
   “Apostolic Canons” 380 Y S N S S M Y
3. Latin Authors.* Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd. Tob. Jud. Mac.
   Hilary of Poitiers 360 Y M S S M M S
   Cheltenham List 360 Y M S M Y Y Y
   Jerome 390 Y M N N N N N
   Augustine 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
   3rd Council of Carthage 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
   Rufinus 400 Y M N N N N N
   Codex Claromontanus 400 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
   Letter of Innocent I 405 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
   Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
   Cassiodorus 560 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
   Isidore of Seville 625 Y M Y Y Y Y Y

 

[Ignatius]

First of all, it was Hippo and Carthage who ultimately put the Canon together which takes Rome out of the picture. And secondly, your Douay Rheims Bible was revised more times than the King James version which (again) doesn’t say much for Rome getting it right the first time.

I’m afraid you (or whoever (mis)informed you) got the facts wrong. The same identical canon that was first declared by Pope Damasus I in 382 (see excerpt of declaration below). This idential canon was reaffirmed many times down through the millennia. Below is an excerpt from the It was the canon declared by Pope Damasus I in 382 was confirmed at Hippo, Carthage and in many more councils down through the aeons. 1546 is only the most recent reaffirmation.

The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

.
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
******It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ******
******The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ******
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.” (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical " (canon 47 A.D. 397).

 

[Teneas]

AH! So now if the Catholic church committed errors, nobody will be blamed. But, if one does not follow Catholic teaching, he is enathema. I see, it all depends upon who makes the error. You just clarified much on this subject and many others.

…how in the heck did you get that the Catholic church had errors from my post. It is even more troubling, because I clearly posted that it was just my opinion of how God would view ignorance or lack of knowing, with his mercy.

You blame many of twisting words…my words did not mean what you just implied.

Edit: I didn’t imply anything at all that you said…

 

[Justy90]

…how in the heck did you get that the Catholic church had errors from my post. It is even more troubling, because I clearly posted that it was just my opinion of how God would view ignorance or lack of knowing, with his mercy.

You blame many of twisting words…my words did not mean what you just implied.

Edit: I didn’t imply anything at all that you said…

We merely disagree. You say that the Catholic church contains no errors and I disagree with you based upon how Rome didn’t officially pronounce the compliation of the Canon and how it was not consistant in its decision making.

 

[Teneas]

We merely disagree. You say that the Catholic church contains no errors and I disagree with you based upon how Rome didn’t officially pronounce the compliation of the Canon and how it was not consistant in its decision making.

Seems to be the trend with you and these forums.

 

[Justy90]

as an angilcan you follow infant baptism, correct? also many anglicans believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, correct? and your format for your services follows very much along with the Catholic mass, correct? so what errors did the Catholic Church make? many anglicans are ready to come back to Rome. therefore who is in error? also there are anglicans who do accept the deutrocannonical books. as stated they were in the first editions of the kjv. so what errors has the Catholic Church commited. could it be that the error was not the Churches but the king who founded anglicanism because like a petulant child he couldnt get his way when the Church in here authority told him no! hmmm:shrug:

I was commenting on how the poster said that if the Catholic church committed error, it would come under God’s mercy and there would be no blame. There’s no need to get off track into King Henry and the refused annulment. That is for another thread.

 

[Teneas]

I was commenting on how the poster said that if the Catholic church committed error, it would come under God’s mercy and there would be no blame. There’s no need to get off track into King Henry and the refused annulment. That is for another thread.

No no no. I did not say the Catholic Church at all. I was speaking about ALL Christian Faiths and Gods mercy. You are so blinded by simply wanting to argue and fight you don’t even read!

Here is exactly what I said:

I agree that it can be problematic by all means. I will say that God won’t hold anyone accountable, at all because of his mercy, that believes in him through their own interpretation of scripture, or domination’s teachings. As long as it does his name proud. Ignorance is bliss, so to speak.

• I am not calling anyone ignorant as a bad term, simply the actual term of ignorance. I also am not speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church with my words on this particular thread, as they are just my feelings on the matter of mercy, and ignorance*

Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. This should not be confused with being unintelligent, as one’s level of intelligence and level of education or general awareness are not the same.

From wiki

Where, besides in my notes saying I was not speaking for the Catholic Church do you even see the word Catholic?!

 

[Justy90]

No no no. I did not say the Catholic Church at all. I was speaking about ALL Christian Faiths and Gods mercy. You are so blinded by simply wanting to argue and fight you don’t even read!

Here is exactly what I said:

Where, besides in my notes saying I was not speaking for the Catholic Church do you even see the word Catholic?!

You said that God won’t hold anyone accountable did you not? Are you saying that this doesn’t also include Catholics? I am just looking for clairification here I don’t need to be scolded like a dog who keeps barking.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the concern is that your posts are like a lawyer seeking to prove reasonable doubt that the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be rather than discussing what is great, laudable, holy, didactic, and life-changing about Anglicanism. You haven’t presented any arguments in favor of your denomination, just attempts to damn ours. The hypothesis that you have regularly formulated is that the Catholic Church is a pack of liars mostly starting at Trent, telling the world it is infallible and making theological dogma with anathemas attached that are falsehoods. I, and I can safely speak for many others here hopefully, can safely say you’re wrong, with respect. Have you ever tried, which any intellectually-honest soul would do, to prove the Church RIGHT and look at those facts that may make you uncomfortable? I am currently re-reading Early Church history and I can safely tell you that it was the Holy Father that led the way toward saving Athanasius and fighting Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Gnosticisim, and every other sickening heresy that has ever accosted the Catholic faith. Why are you so quick to doubt and assume the worst about the papacy? Can you produce any primary source quotations or statements in the correct context that disprove the papacy and the claims of the Church?

Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Cranmer, all these folks are just as fair game as the popes are, which you regularly criticize vigorously. If anyone is begging to have history beat up on him, it’s Henry VIII…

I was commenting on how the poster said that if the Catholic church committed error, it would come under God’s mercy and there would be no blame. There’s no need to get off track into King Henry and the refused annulment. That is for another thread.

 

[Teneas]

You said that God won’t hold anyone accountable did you not? Are you saying that this doesn’t also include Catholics? I am just looking for clairification here I don’t need to be scolded like a dog who keeps barking.

I will let my posting stand on it’s own merit.

 

[BrianH]

Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

Your site is misinformed about what took place in the councils and ratifications of the Popes and misses the simple fact that there were no computers, phones, or fax machines back then.

The reason for the many different councils were for the dispute of the Deuterocanonical books keep coming into question, but never removed from the original canon. Trent just closed all disputes and arguments about the deutero books and kept as status quo from the fourth century. The only thing Trent did that was different from all the other previous councils and Popes was to attach the “anathema” (excommunication) to anyone who rejects the deuterocanonical books.

Secondly, the reason why other books kept popping up in the early centuries such as 3rd and 4th Corinthians was because these communites lacked overnight mail and the telephone. But when news came to these communites of the authenticity of the canon from 397 a,d they quickly dropped their uncannonized books from their Catholic Liturgies.

Somtimes common sense can answer the difficult questions?

 

[Teneas]

bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

Links like that amuse me. I have never seen a Catholic website, including this one, that is so against another faith.

There is a problem with the very first sentence on that link btw. As far as I am aware, I might be wrong, James and Hebrews were both in the canonized books from the early councils, and were not touched until Martin Luther took James out simple because that is the book that clearly states “you are not saved by faith alone”. Hebrews, I don’t know if he touched that one. I am not as blessed in knowledge as some of my brothers and sisters here can be.

If I am wrong about James, someone let me know, and I will gladly admit it.

 

[Chris_S_1]

Links like that amuse me. I have never seen a Catholic website, including this one, that is so against another faith.

There is a problem with the very first sentence on that link btw. As far as I am aware, I might be wrong, James and Hebrews were both in the canonized books from the early councils, and were not touched until Martin Luther took James out simple because that is the book that clearly states “you are not saved by faith alone”. Hebrews, I don’t know if he touched that one. I am not as blessed in knowledge as some of my brothers and sisters here can be.

If I am wrong about James, someone let me know, and I will gladly admit it.

I think the only time you could ever say the Rome questioned James or Hebrews is by taking the opinion of some Catholic in Rome before they laid down the canon in 382. After that, I don’t think Romans or Hebrews was ever questioned by the Catholic Church as a whole.

Martin Luther, however, did reject James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, and put them in the appendix of his Bible, saying that they were not divinely inspired scripture, but useful for a good read. I think he later re-accepted them. It seems like the point of a changing canon is more of a question for Protestants to answer, not Catholics.

Here’s a quote from the website:

Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.

Umm, of course it did. It accepted books that were later rejected by Protestants, not the Catholic Church. I don’t see how this comment makes any sense. I accept at least 27 books that the Jews reject, but that does not mean that the New Testament is uninspired.

I find it ironic that for a website claiming to have “irrefutable” questions for Catholics, it actually offers some of the easiest. I can think of way harder questions someone could give us.

 

[Teneas]

Yeah I agree, it’s never been to much of an issue for the Catholic Church as far as the books of the Bible are concerned.

I love the comments I get sometimes down here in the south from our Protestant brothers and sisters “Do you know that the Catholic Church added books into the bible?”

facepalm

 

[BrianH]

Your site is misinformed about what took place in the councils and ratifications of the Popes and misses the simple fact that there were no computers, phones, or fax machines back then.

The reason for the many different councils were for the dispute of the Deuterocanonical books keep coming into question, but never removed from the original canon. Trent just closed all disputes and arguments about the deutero books and kept as status quo from the fourth century. The only thing Trent did that was different from all the other previous councils and Popes was to attach the “anathema” (excommunication) to anyone who rejects the deuterocanonical books.

Secondly, the reason why other books kept popping up in the early centuries such as 3rd and 4th Corinthians was because these communites lacked overnight mail and the telephone. But when news came to these communites of the authenticity of the canon from 397 a,d they quickly dropped their uncannonized books from their Catholic Liturgies.

Somtimes common sense can answer the difficult questions?

My site?

 

[Teneas]

My site?

The sight you linked.

 

[twopekinguys]

Your site is misinformed about what took place in the councils and ratifications of the Popes and misses the simple fact that there were no computers, phones, or fax machines back then.

The reason for the many different councils were for the dispute of the Deuterocanonical books keep coming into question, but never removed from the original canon. Trent just closed all disputes and arguments about the deutero books and kept as status quo from the fourth century. The only thing Trent did that was different from all the other previous councils and Popes was to attach the “anathema” (excommunication) to anyone who rejects the deuterocanonical books.

Secondly, the reason why other books kept popping up in the early centuries such as 3rd and 4th Corinthians was because these communites lacked overnight mail and the telephone. But when news came to these communites of the authenticity of the canon from 397 a,d they quickly dropped their uncannonized books from their Catholic Liturgies.

Somtimes common sense can answer the difficult questions?

That site is misinformed in more ways than one…LOL

I clicked around the site, and found their “find a church” button.

I entered my location details, and it came up with two addresses in my town. Both of them were Funeral Homes…LOL

Not any type of credible information there I’m afraid.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That site is misinformed in more ways than one…LOL

I clicked around the site, and found their “find a church” button.

I entered my location details, and it came up with two addresses in my town. Both of them were Funeral Homes…LOL

Not any type of credible information there I’m afraid.

They might have figured if you were a Catholic you were already dead and gone as far as they were concerned. . . Just kidding!