Protestant Council to Determine Canonicity

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicea325 said:
No it did not! Why are Protestants so adamant about Trent? Trent did NOT codify anything. Read ALL the canons. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm what had been discussed and settled centuries at previous councils.
Click to expand...
You can explain to the Protestants Lutheran that Trent did not codify the council just reaffirmed what has been discussed until you are blue in the face and they still believe their own version of history. That’s just what they are taught.
It is NOT the Catholic understanding of history…
However, they are not Catholics so it goes to reason.

Many of these same posters though will be offended if they feel we are trying to teach
or state what Lutherans believe especially when it comes to Luther.

I wish they would listen to our POV and understand but it’s a not happening on this thread.

Mary.
 
Jon:
Of course you view things through Lutheran glasses;
that is my main point.
We have many willing to dialogue with us and I did not mean to compare your negatively to the SDA sorry of that was offensive.
Just they speak a lot of Catholic history and how the Church did this or that historically which reminds me of the LCMS posters but it’s off topic for this thread.
I apologize.

Mary.
 
From the Catholic Encyclopedia"
The canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:
Click to expand...
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Click to expand...
The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
The Old Testament canon (including the deuteros) in the New Testament
Click to expand...
**The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. **Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fidei. But this was not done by way of any formal decision; we should search the pages of the New Testament in vain for any trace of such action. The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine

Jon
 
MaryT777 said:
You can explain to the Protestants Lutheran that Trent did not codify the council just reaffirmed what has been discussed until you are blue in the face and they still believe their own version of history. That’s just what they are taught.
It is NOT the Catholic understanding of history…
However, they are not Catholics so it goes to reason.

Many of these same posters though will be offended if they feel we are trying to teach
or state what Lutherans believe especially when it comes to Luther.

I wish they would listen to our POV and understand but it’s a not happening on this thread.

Mary.
Click to expand...
🤷
 
"Nicea325:
Trent did NOT codify anything. Read ALL the canons. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm what had been discussed and settled centuries at previous councils.
Click to expand...
JonNC said:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
…

The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.
…
Click to expand...
🍿
 
steido01 said:
This topic intrigues me. It’d be worth a thread in its own right.

I’m not particularly familiar with history here… I can understand Metropolitans taking their issues to Rome - simply seeking advice/arbitration from their peer who happened to hold a place of honor (“first among equals” and all that). But did individual bishops bring their domestic issues to Rome without the knowledge of their own Metropolitan? If so, it would seem to be a direct abuse of canon 6, unless their local Metropolitan was somehow indisposed…
Click to expand...
I am talking about the head patriarch travelling all the way to Rome from Alexandria?
 
Nicea325 said:
…

Yes…Broadcasted announcement…NOTHING added to previous canon. End of story!
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, doesn’t this, further down in the same document, reaffirm what you are saying Nicea325?
The Old Testament canon (including the deuteros) in the New Testament
Click to expand...
The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fidei. But this was not done by way of any formal decision; we should search the pages of the New Testament in vain for any trace of such action. The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data.
Click to expand...
 
adf417:
As a matter of fact, doesn’t this, further down in the same document, reaffirm what you are saying Nicea325?
Click to expand...
Quote:
The Old Testament canon (including the deuteros) in the New Testament
Click to expand...
The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. Being dogmatic in its purport, it implies that the Apostles bequeathed the same Canon to the Church, as a part of the depositum fidei. But this was not done by way of any formal decision; we should search the pages of the New Testament in vain for any trace of such action. The larger Canon of the Old Testament passed through the Apostles’ hands to the church tacitly, by way of their usage and whole attitude toward its components; an attitude which, for most of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, reveals itself in the New, and for the rest, must have exhibited itself in oral utterances, or at least in tacit approval of the special reverence of the faithful. Reasoning backward from the status in which we find the deutero books in the earliest ages of post-Apostolic Christianity, we rightly affirm that such a status points of Apostolic sanction, which in turn must have rested on revelation either by Christ or the Holy Spirit. For the deuterocanonicals at least, we needs must have recourse to this legitimate prescriptive argument, owing to the complexity and inadequacy of the New Testament data.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!
 
I find it amusing that the argument as turned to a Caltholic VS LCMS debate given that of all the English speaking “protestants” the LCMS is probably the most open to going back to Luther’s complete bible.

…

On a side note, don’t Eastern Catholics bibles have more books than Latin Catholics? As I understand it The Prayer of Manasseh is used in the Byzantine Catholic service of Great Compline.

If so… than given that Luther’s Bible included the Prayer of Manasseh, will we see Latin Catholics include it too in deference to their Eastern Catholic brothers in Christ?

If so, would we Lutherans then be wise enough to not show too much gloating? 😉
 
Nicea325 said:
Yes…Broadcasted announcement…NOTHING added to previous canon. End of story!
Click to expand...
I find this assertion curious, given that the council of Trent was ‘voted’ on - I would find it really surprising to find that any deliberative body would need to vote mere broadcasting of ideas that everyone already agrees to.
 
benjohnson said:
I find this assertion curious, given that the council of Trent was ‘voted’ on - I would find it really surprising to find that any deliberative body would need to vote mere broadcasting of ideas that everyone already agrees to.
Click to expand...
And to allow debate before voting on the issue, to boot. 🤷
 
steido01 said:
And to allow debate before voting on the issue, to boot. 🤷
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out countless times…This was only in reaction to the reformation. Had the reformers not changed the canon for the protestant churches Trent would probably have not needed to exist, at least for this promulgation.

As protestants like to point out, the “common use of scripture at the time” was already set right? Is this not the same argument used when in the 4th century it wasn’t “the church that established what was to be the bible” but what protestants say is “what was commonly being used”? Why is it a good reason in the 4th century but not in the 16th century?

Peace!!!
 
benjohnson said:
I find it amusing that the argument as turned to a Caltholic VS LCMS debate given that of all the English speaking “protestants” the LCMS is probably the most open to going back to Luther’s complete bible.
Click to expand...
This is very true. In fact, the LCMS has a dedicated Study Bible version of the Deuterocanonical books (I refuse to use the “A” word :p, lol).

You know what they say thou… you fight the most with those most similar to you :o
 
benjohnson said:
I find this assertion curious, given that the council of Trent was ‘voted’ on - I would find it really surprising to find that any deliberative body would need to vote mere broadcasting of ideas that everyone already agrees to.
Click to expand...
Voting on is not the end of it…the papal approval is the end of it.

Prior to Pope Paul VI reaffirming the traditional teaching of the Church against contraception…it was the majority view to relax the Church opposition to ABC.

Pope Paul VI went the minority view and affirmed the Church against ABC…and Humanae Vitae is the end of it.

You should have been full from the popcorn by now…😃
 
JonNC said:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia"

Emphasis mine

Jon
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine…Jon…from the same quote:

The canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

Meaning Trent’s was the most forceful when compared to the previous councils.
 
benjohnson said:
I find it amusing that the argument as turned to a Caltholic VS LCMS debate given that of all the English speaking “protestants” the LCMS is probably the most open to going back to Luther’s complete bible.

Good…but why stop there, with the LCMS? Why not make this a movement to try to get all other Lutherans that have stopped having the DCs follow the LCMS lead?

And why stop with the Lutherans…why not to go try this will as many protestant denoms as you can…🤷

…
On a side note, don’t Eastern Catholics bibles have more books than Latin Catholics? As I understand it The Prayer of Manasseh is used in the Byzantine Catholic service of Great Compline.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
pablope said:
Emphasis mine…Jon…from the same quote:

The canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

Meaning Trent’s was the most forceful when compared to the previous councils.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I think this makes the point clear. Prior to Trent, all Catholics could question the disputed books. After Trent, they could not.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top