R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Why would that specific answer be any different than the larger question that I answered?
Are you wanting to discuss it from an evidential perspective?
- Status
Are you wanting to discuss it from an evidential perspective?
P
peary
Guest
**Exactly WHERE are the differences between Vatican I and the Council of Trent? In what areas? Please elaborate for me, because this is all new to my understanding.
**
T
Teflon93
Guest
Okay, one of the things you need to get straight is that what Trent did was “dogmatically define” a canon which had been in use within the Catholic Church for centuries.
What was the difference between the canon in use in 325 and the canon in use at Trent?
Which non-canonical books of Scripture were referenced at Nicea?
Look at my signature line. Given that Luther was out prior to Trent, what Scripture did he receive from the Catholic Church?
He had to receive it prior to 1517, so what Scripture does he refer to?
And wherever did he get the notion as to what books were in it?
Beyond that, I carelessly employed “settled” in reference to canon with regard to Nicea. It was not settled BY that Council.
P
peary
Guest
**The Council of Nicea met in 325 A.D, assembled at the command of the Roman Emperor Constantine, and met to address the heresies of a man whose name was Arius.
The Council of Nicea did NOT make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible. What the latter councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Church congregations and was already in practice all over the empire.**
The Council of Nicea did NOT make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible. What the latter councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Church congregations and was already in practice all over the empire.**
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Difference. Singular in my eyes and I apologize for not being specific. The concept that canonization is subsequent. They were GIVEN to the church. I think to the Fathers as well. It was not Trent which determined the canon, or I suppose even Hippo or Carthage.**Exactly WHERE are the differences between Vatican I and the Council of Trent? In what areas? Please elaborate for me, because this is all new to my understanding.
Trent speaks of the traditions of the Fathers but that is not really specific enough I suspect. Those at Trent would have been aware of conflicting views of the Fathers on the canon by men like Irenaues who considered the Shepherd of Hermas to be scripture. Vatican one seems to clarify their view in my estimation…to one that is…well…a lot like mine! Albeit different views on the seven but certainly one that is more alike a Catholic canon than a traditional Protestant (well traditional since the early 1800’s) canon. They are scriptural because God is their author. Now sure, you have an elaboration on faith and reason but “reason” is not truly the focus of this declaration, either actually.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I actually do not disagree with a thing you just said!
T
Teflon93
Guest
And which noncanonical books were included within the Bible of 325 which were removed from the Bible at Trent? (To disabuse anyone of the notion that the canon was UNKNOWN prior to Trent).
C
cfrancis
Guest
So I am to assume your asnwer is: God’s sovereignty.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
It seems like you have gone from thinking the canon was decided at Nicea…which you did state…to some kind of quasi declaration of canonicity based upon which books were referenced.
There is no conclusive proof of what books were in circulation in what form in 325 as used by Nicea!
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The specific answer is the same as the larger answer of course.
I can go specific from a classical apologist perspective if that is what you are asking from me. I dont mind of course.
C
cfrancis
Guest
God’s Sovereignty, right?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
correct.
C
cfrancis
Guest
Is there a proximate cause?
T
Teflon93
Guest
No, actually my original (clumsily-worded) point was that Trent merely confirmed a canon which had existed since the 4th century. This is because within the Church Christ founded dogma is not defined until it is violated. It was the Protestant efforts to eliminate James and other books of Scripture from the Bible which prompted the dogmatic definition at Trent. This does not mean that the canon wasn’t established by the Church prior to Trent; indeed, it had to be for the dogmatic definition to be required.
I am digging up my reference for the book-by-book comparisons; I will post when I find it.
It should also be noted that “dogmatically-defined” and “defined” are two separate things, a distinction non-Catholics often fail to draw.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Lawyer!
Or Philosopher I suppose.
The proximate cause is the usage by the Christian churches. Likewise patristic support in surviving writings…if one wishes to go that route.
P
peary
Guest
**“4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.” Session 3, 24 April 1870, Canon 2, Section 4, *Decrees of Vatican Council I *
This is the only statement made by Vatican I in its decrees with regard to Holy Scripture.
I don’t know where you got your information from, but either you have another council in mind or the information you received is faulty. The latter is probably the problem.**
P
peary
Guest
**SESSION THE FOURTH - COUNCIL OF TRENT
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.
Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and [Page 21] twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment. **
The Council of Trent is VERY CLEAR as to what constitutes Sacred Scripture - the biblical Canon, and this was reaffirmed at Vatican I. Again, your information is faulty.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume1.htm
Chapter 2 On revelation
The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things,
can be known
with certainty from the consideration of created things,
by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. [13]
It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal
himself and
the eternal laws of his will
to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way.
This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [14] .
It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God
which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason,
can, even in the present state of the human race, be known
by everyone
without difficulty,
with firm certitude and
with no intermingling of error.
It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end,
that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him [15] .
Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in
written books and
unwritten traditions,
which were
received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself,
or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit,
and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us [16].
The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.
**These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical
not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
but because,
being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit,
they have God as their author,
and were as such committed to the church. **
Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
P
peary
Guest
Do you ever read what you post? Check what I took the liberty to emphasize above.
- Status