On the closed Cannon of Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Macgruber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Macgruber

Guest
Can someone help explain the reason why we wouldn’t include official church teachings, dogmas, doctrines, etc. in the bible as they continue to be defined? Why is the cannon closed when we need ongoing leadership in the form of infallible teaching? Am I just confusing the purpose of the bible with the purpose of official teaching?
 
The pope is the shepherd in the 23 psalm. The pope leads people away from the devil. In the psalm the shepherd leads the sheep away from the wolves.

I don’ the mean he can change anyone. The pope enforces God’s rules.
 
Macgruber said:
Can someone help explain the reason why we wouldn’t include official church teachings, dogmas, doctrines, etc. in the bible as they continue to be defined? Why is the cannon closed when we need ongoing leadership in the form of infallible teaching? Am I just confusing the purpose of the bible with the purpose of official teaching?
Click to expand...
The Bible is a compilation of scripture. Teaching is a separate matter, and found in various forms - catechisms, council teachings, constitutions, various papal documents - although most of this derives directly or indirectly from the Bible.

I would also like to point out that the Church has not declared the canon to be closed. It could at some point decide that another book such as 3rd Maccabbees should be included.
 
In my Theological Foundations class with Dr. Hahn, he referred us to his article called “Prima Scriptura.” I can’t find it online to link to, but here are a couple distinctions between Scripture and Magisterial texts from my notes on the essay:
  • Infallibility is a negative assistance (God prevents Church from speaking error). Biblical inspiration is a positive influence - the words expressed are properly the Spirit’s. They are 2 different charisms.
  • God is principle author of Scripture. God is not properly the author but the guarantor of infallibility. * Scripture is written in “referential” language. As opposed to Tradition, which is written in “auxiliary” language––meaning the wording of a doctrine can be rephrased from generation to generation for clarity of expression.
Likewise, part of the Church’s infallibility is the interpretation of Scripture. For Scripture demands an interpreter and this explains why a Magisterium is necessary. Magisterial texts are not part of Scripture because they do not have the same pedigree of “inspiration.” Magisterial texts are rather protected from error, and, as mentioned above, can be rephrased or developed to accommodate different generations and to delve deeper into a truth.
 
p.s. I hesitate to refer to a “closed” canon, FYI, even though there does not appear to be any sign of the canon changing. My explanation here.
 
The canon of scripture circumscribes or defines which ancient texts can be used liturgically at Mass (as best as my non-academic understanding of the matter goes).

What the priest may say during a homily seems to have no bounds, recent examples:
  • one priest was telling us about how his father is addicted to smoking
  • another priest was telling us how his preparations for a routine colonoscopy (clear liquids and laxatives) reminds him of advent preparations for the feast of the Nativity. I don’t see why drawing attention to his lower digestive tract does anything for me, as far as preparing for Christmas. After thinking about it for about three weeks now, I supposed the prep for colonoscopy has a parallel in going to confession – maybe.
clearly there is a line that should be drawn between revelation to the apostles and “inspiration” of our priests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top