Q's for Non-Catholics about Bible Canon

[JonNC]

=aconcretecamper;11008138]I wonder if the problem/answer is much more simple than what is presented in the previous posts.

Could it have been that Luther took advantage of the early controversy about certain books to remove the Church’s teaching on purgatory, praying for the dead, angel interceding for us, the Mass, etc…just a thought.

On these three:
Purgatory - Luther’s, and that of the lutheran reformers, primary complaint about Purgatory was what they viewed as the abuses that grew around the doctrine - indulgences, privates masses,etc.
Prayer for the Dead - is not opposed by Lutherans, nor was it by the reformers. Prayer for the dead can be found in various Lutheran funeral settings.
Intercession of angels,or saints - intercession by the company of Heaven is not denied by Lutherans. Lutherans, however, do not practice invocation.

Finally, for the theory that Luther “removed books” based on doctrine, then one must be able to identify a doctrine in each of the 7 DC books that Luther opposed.

BTW…there is no evidence of widespread controversy over the books after Carthage in the early 5th century.

Whether or not dispute was widespread isn’t the point. The point is that dispute was permitted by the Church. Luther, like others, was practicing Catholic liberty regarding the canon.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Since the canon spelled out at Carthage was never adopted by the universal church (the Eastern churches have their own biblical canons that differ to this day) I don’t see how this one particular canon could be considered an infallible, or even an authoritative teaching outside of Western Christianity.

One thing to keep in mind…the Bible was not meant to supplant authority of the bishop/s…but for edification of the faithful and readings during the Liturgy.

I believe, as per info provided, that there indeed was an eastern council sometime in the 800 or so…that adopted the same canon, albeit there were some more OT books…based on tradition on what was received and what was being read in the churches during the Liturgy.

 

[JonNC]

1. You are according them same authority to the Eastern Churches which is a mistake.
2. Luther did removed books from the cannon decided on at Carthage.

1). Of course the other patriarchates are equal. See Nicea canon 6. There has never been unanimity throughout the Church regarding the canon. Further, there has never been a truly ecumenical council set a canon.

1. Luther had no power to add or remove books from the canon. Luther did have the right to question the canonicity of books which have been in dispute since the early Church.
   Luther’s translation not only included all 73 of the books typically found in a western Bible, he also included The Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tws;11009188]

Jon, thank for writing back. I latched onto one sentence and wanted to follow-up.

My pleasure.

“The Lutheran confessions, as a result, do not stipulate a canon, or rule, about the books. Instead, we recognize the history of the books, some being universally attested, some being disputed, some being rejected, and consider them in light of Church history.”

This intrigues me. If i understand what you are saying, then the Lutheran confessions stop short of what saying is the Word of God and what is not. Do I have that right?

What they do is stop short of doing something the Unified Church has never done, set a canon at a truly ecumenical council.

Do they have something like a sliding scale for inspiration and authority? Like, some books are definitely the word of God, and others may or may not be in whole or part?

I wouldn’t word it a sliding scale, but instead a solid respect for the historic Church. So, how we use the disputed books will vary from how we use the universally attested books.

Or to put it in binary terms, how can one be sure any book is the Word of God, or is not?

How the historic Church treats and evaluates the various books gives us a good example, and we can trust His Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon…this what you highlighted:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.

Maybe my eyes deceive me…where does the Cardinal offer his opinion above?

From what I read and bolded or enlarged…Cajetan is describing what St. Jerome did.

This his opinion, from what I understand:

Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical.

And here further…he is describing what St. Jerome did:

For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

And here…he then says what he thinks or his opinion:

…Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage

Apparently Cardinal Cajetan took some heat from some quarters for his views of the canon.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/cajetan-on-canon-hes-ok-bcause-hes-one.html

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

1. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Jon…if you claim this gives the eastern churches equal authority to Rome…you are greatly amending the meaning of cannon 6.

Also, I would like you to define dispute…1 person not agreeing? 1,000,000 people not agreeing? The cannon was closed and accepted…stating there was dispute by some is irrellevent.

 

[JonNC]

1. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Jon…if you claim this gives the eastern churches equal authority to Rome…you are greatly amending the meaning of cannon 6.

Also, I would like you to define dispute…1 person not agreeing? 1,000,000 people not agreeing? The cannon was closed and accepted…stating there was dispute by some is irrellevent.

Rome has a similar custom as Alexandria. There is no council of the early Church that provides Rome a universal jurisdiction, or any form of supremacy approaching what Rome claims for itself.

For Catholics, the canon was closed at Trent. Prior to that, it was never closed nor universally accepted in the undivided, pre-schism Church.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

Rome has a similar custom as Alexandria. There is no council of the early Church that provides Rome a universal jurisdiction, or any form of supremacy approaching what Rome claims for itself.

For Catholics, the canon was closed at Trent. Prior to that, it was never closed nor universally accepted in the undivided, pre-schism Church.

Jon

Jon,

1. What books were added or deleted from the bible between the Carthage and Trent? Your answer will shed light on your previous comment.
2. To claim Rome did not have universal authority is to ignore the church fathers and history.

There is no point in continuing this…we will need to agree to disagree. You may have the last word. God Bless

 

[pablope]

Apparently Cardinal Cajetan took some heat from some quarters for his views of the canon.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/cajetan-on-canon-hes-ok-bcause-hes-one.html

Jon

Thanks, Jon.

Well, the writer uses the same quote I provided you.

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

So where are Cajetan’s opinions in the quote above? The first part…he is citing what Jerome did.

The last part is his actual opinion…and he says he agrees with Augustine and Carthage.

So what am I missing in the first part as to what Cajetan’s opinion is? He is citing Jerome, on closer reading.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

1. What books were added or deleted from the bible between the Carthage and Trent? Your answer will shed light on your previous comment.
2. To claim Rome did not have universal authority is to ignore the church fathers and history.

There is no point in continuing this…we will need to agree to disagree. You may have the last word. God Bless

On #1, I don’t see it as a matter of what was added or deleted. As a Lutheran, I See all 73 books as part of scripture, they belong in the Bible.

On #2, I agree that this is one of those disagreements that is far older than the Reformation. We can argue back and forth, but it will take an end to the Great Schism to resolve it. I pray for that day.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

On #1, I don’t see it as a matter of what was added or deleted. As a Lutheran, I See all 73 books as part of scripture, they belong in the Bible.

On #2, I agree that this is one of those disagreements that is far older than the Reformation. We can argue back and forth, but it will take an end to the Great Schism to resolve it. I pray for that day.

Jon

What you really need is 76 books dude.

 

[JonNC]

What you really need is 76 books dude.

And there we are: even Luther’s 74 book translation falls short, according Holy Orthodoxy.
What do Carthage and Hippo mean to Orthodoxy, IP?

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

And there we are: even Luther’s 74 book translation falls short, according Holy Orthodoxy.
What do Carthage and Hippo mean to Orthodoxy, IP?

Jon

I would consider them local councils, I don’t believe everyone everywhere universally ratified a canon. This was something the local church or rather the general jurisdiction of a church decided.

 

[steido01]

I would consider them local councils, I don’t believe everyone everywhere universally ratified a canon. This was something the local church or rather the general jurisdiction of a church decided.

Huzzah!

 

[concretecamper]

I would consider them local councils, I don’t believe everyone everywhere universally ratified a canon. This was something the local church or rather the general jurisdiction of a church decided.

HaHa…I always forget about that verse in scripture that tells us the Kingdom of God is a democracy.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Huzzah!

Take in mind I believe most protestants mistaken for their reasons for rejecting those books not found in the hebrew.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

HaHa…I always forget about that verse in scripture that tells us the Kingdom of God is a democracy.

Its not about democracy its about something that was never universally enforced. The fact is in the eastern and western church there were different canons and still are different canons to this day.

 

[concretecamper]

Its not about democracy its about something that was never universally enforced. The fact is in the eastern and western church there were different canons and still are different canons to this day.

The cannon was accepted and used for over 1100 years prior to Trent. The cannon received papal approvals and Trent simply restated what was already accepted because Luther decided to move 6 books to the appendix. The fact that the eastern churches never agreed or ratified or has a different cannon is of no consequence. It may not be the most ecumenical thing to say but the eastern churches carry no authority over Christ’s Church. They deserve respect as our closest brothers and sister in Christ, but no authority.

I thought I was out of this debate…as I said to Jon…you can have the last word. God Bless.

 

[concretecamper]

clarification…I am referring to the eastern churches not in full communion with Rome.

 

[Alizarin]

The cannon was accepted and used for over 1100 years prior to Trent. The cannon received papal approvals and Trent simply restated what was already accepted because Luther decided to move 6 books to the appendix. The fact that the eastern churches never agreed or ratified or has a different cannon is of no consequence. It may not be the most ecumenical thing to say but the eastern churches carry no authority over Christ’s Church

But before the schism the eastern bishops were in full communion with, and had just as much say as, the bishops of the west, no? And prior to the great schism, when they were still in full communion with Rome, they didn’t agree on canon. I believe that’s the point he’s making.