Question about Catholic canon of scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter wed2catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Salvatore123 said:
Randy,

Believe it or not, we are saying the same thing 🙂

I am not disputing that the Church correctly recognized the canon of scripture long before Trent.

I am simply saying that Trent FOREVER removed ANY doubt that may have lingered anywhere in Christendom (regardless of what Protestants claim).

Look at my examples of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Didn’t those two events occur? Yes. Did they occur at the time they occurred? I know that sounds like a silly question, but it has validity - the answer is yes. But did people HAVE to recognize these events as dogmatic BEFORE they occurred? No. But did the absence of a dogmatic teaching and absence of universal acceptance by all Catholics change the fact that they did occur? Again, no.

Same thing regarding the canon.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Randy and Salvatore123: what authority does the normal every day magisterium have?

I say it does have authority. I say that some truths taught by the ordinary magisterium must be believed by Catholics before any anathemas or dogmatic definitions regarding those truths are made to the universal Catholic Church.

Am I right or wrong about that?

I guess what I’m saying is that people DON’T have the right to disagree with the teaching AUTHORITY of the ordinary magisterium regarding the Canon of Scripture prior to the dogmatic definition regarding the Canon of scripture.

Am I right or wrong?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Randy and Salvatore123: what authority does the normal every day magisterium have?

I say it does have authority. I say that some truths taught by the ordinary magisterium must be believed by Catholics before any anathemas or dogmatic definitions regarding those truths are made to the universal Catholic Church.

Am I right or wrong about that?

I guess what I’m saying is that people DON’T have the right to disagree with the teaching AUTHORITY of the ordinary magisterium regarding the Canon of Scripture prior to the dogmatic definition regarding the Canon of scripture.

Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Sounds right, Jerry, but I’ve always been fuzzy about the ordinary magisterium. Guess I need to do some reading on this.
 
Jerry,

Consider these examples:
  1. John Paul II “taught” that capital punishment should be banned “except for the most extreme case where it was nearly impossible to prevent the prisoner from killing again”.
  2. The Church stating that priests in the Latin Rite churches cannot marry after becoming priests.
In both examples, we have a “pronouncement”, but in the former, we have a personal “opinion”, while with the latter, we have a ‘law’ tha tis binding, but one that may be overturned at a later date.

In NEITHER example are Catholics bound to “believe with certainty” that these are “correct”. Are we Catholics bound to not disobey them? Absolutely. Are we bound to accept them as “correct”? At a certain level, yes. But must we give to them an asset of faith? No.

In the first - regarding capital punishment - the Church will NEVER dogmatically rule that capital punishment is against God’s commandments and will, because the opposite has always been taught: man may defend himself and others, even using death as a means of defense, provided that it is proportionate to the threat. JPII went further, but in doing so, his statement about capital punishment was a PRUDENTIAL judgment that was personal to him. When he advocated for the sparing of the life of that woman in Texas years ago who was to be executed, Catholics were NOT obliged to follow him and also advocate a pardon of her. Prudential judgments on the part of popes are personal. They carry great weight and obviously, coming from a man such as JPII, should be considered with great deference before disagreeing with his conclusion. But that does not mean we Catholics are obligated to agree with him.

In the second example - regarding the prohibition of allowing Latin Rite priests to marry after becoming priests - that is a matter of discipline promulgated by the Holy Father and confirmed by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. We Catholics do NOT have to agree it is a good idea - but we are both obligated to follow it AND to not encourage Catholics to “fight” it.

Canon 752 of the 1983 Code of Canon law speaks to the ordinary magisterium:

“Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

A Commentary prepared by the University of Navarra and Saint Paul University states:

"This canon [refering to No. 752] refers to the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the episcopal college as such. This magisterium, when expounding doctrine on faith and morals, does not attempt to define it by a definitive act. This authentic magisterium, although it is not the proper object of the asset of faith, must be received with religious obsequium."

Note that I said “A Commentary”. Commentaries are NOT official parts of the Code of Canon Law, and several have been published. They are, however, instructive regarding the meaning of each canon.

When distinguishing between the “ordinary magisterium” and the “extra-ordinary magisterium”, great care must be taken as it is not always “cut and dried”.

Consider Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - JPII’s Apostolic Letter regarding women in the priesthood. Most argue that letter was a teaching on a matter of faith that was equivalent to dogma and thus all Catholics had to adhere to it as a matter of faith. Quite a few theologians disagreed and have refused to accept that letter as definitive.

P.S. - As another example - consider the encyclical Quo Primum issued along with the “Missal of Pius V”, more than 400 years ago:

“Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”

Clearly, Pius V “exceeded” (pardon my use of this word - I can think of no other) his authority as Pope to bind future popes regarding the MANNER in which a Mass is said. If Quo Primum had been a matter of faith and morals that was dogmatic, then Paul VI, in promulgating the Novus Ordo, disobeyed a dogma of the Church. If so, then we would have had the first instance of a Pope becoming schismatic himself. That did NOT happen, but it did not prevent “breakaways” such as the Society of Saint Piux X and other schismatic “sects”, who claim that the Catholic Church is in a state of “sedevacantism”, and has been since at least Paul VI, and some say as far back as John XXIII - Paul VI’s predecessor.

I beg people to NOT use this thread as an opportunity to start a debate on either Ordinatio Sacerdotalis or Quo Primum. I cite them merely as examples of how difficult distinguishing magisterial teachings can be . . .
 
Randy_Carson said:
Hmmm…consider:

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

*Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible. *

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter: After St. Jerome became the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha, there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas between 266-523 that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this article. 🙂
 
 
Salvatore123 said:
The Council of Trent was the first time ANY Church officially declared what was to be the canon of both the OT and NT.
Click to expand...
That, my brother. Beginning with The Council of Rome in A.D. 382 and reaffirmed many times since, Trent being the most recent, Many Councils reaffirmed the same Canon of Scripture.

Holy Scripture was declared inerrant 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 Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, 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.
But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.”
(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 Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
(canon 47 A.D. 397).
 
(Continued)

**Additional Councils Approving the same Bible Canon **

**Council of Rome (382) **
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Hippo (393) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
**Council of Carthage (397) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
**Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405) **
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
**Council of Carthage (419) **
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
**Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441) **
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up at the Council of Rome by Pope Damasus I; this list later adopted by subsequent Countils and the Fathers of the Council of Trent.

Yours in Christ.
 
Concerning the Canon of Scripture . . (very good comments earlier and a lot of this is repetitious - I wrote it before I saw page 2)

Go to this link catholic.com/radio/calendar.php . Put into the calendar “March 2011”. Then go to Friday March 4 (2011). Gary Michuta and Catholic Answers radio have a free audio radio show on this very topic entitled “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”. It was excellent and I’m going to order Gary’s book.

Jimmy Akin also did a Catholic Answers radio show about this issue (it was in March of 1998). That show likewise was excellent but I don’t know if it is available any more.

There are probably lots of shows in-between these dates too that cover this topic that are just as good—I don’t know this for certain though.

Stephen Ray has an article on this issue as well catholic-convert.com/resources/writings/steve-rays/ .

There were disputes about the Canon early in the Church. The Church used Her Authority to settle these disputes. The Canon was affirmed at the (Catholic) Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 A.D. St. Augustine attended these incidentally. This Canonicity issue was also (as mentioned) ratified by the Pope.

Some misinformed non-Catholics occasionally will try to say we “invented” the current Canon at the Council of Trent in response to the Protestant Reformation.

When you point out to them Hippo and Carthage (and others) they will say “But Trent was the first ECUMENICAL COUNCIL to affirm the 73 Catholic books of Scripture and that wasn’t until 1545 to 1563 AD” and it was merely done to snub the Protestants. This is not true.

But ask if that is true why does the Catholic ECUMENICAL Council of Basel (1431 to 1445 AD—almost 100 years before Protestantism was invented) sometimes called the “Council of Florence” says this:
. . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Click to expand...
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John. . . . .
Click to expand...
The other thing to ask is if not the Pope then:

1- What verse gives you a list of the Canon (of course it is Oral Apostolic Tradition that was authoritatively exercised and there is no verse) or
2- What Oral Tradition do you find authoritative and WHY? If they give you a list of reasons etc. ask them where those reasons are in Scripture (they are not there either).

Pretty soon you see just another tradition of men being asserted and that’s why even today some people calling themselves Bible-only Christians ***deny ***the Canonicity of some books in today’s ***Protestant ***Canon (you can do searches and find these on your own-Luther even tried this with the New Testament Deuterocanon but it didn’t take hold). It’s kind of a “papacy” in and of itself.

Some person needs to have real Apostolic Authority given to them and protected by Jesus. And someone DOES—even if other people deny it.
 
Note: I have never suggested that the Catholic Church had never recognized the current canon of the OT and NT as valid scripture before Trent.

My point was that Trent was the first Council where the Church spoke in an infallible manner and attached an anathema to their teaching for those who disagreed with it.

I agree that the canon of the OT was accepted by a majority of the Catholic Church by the time Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to produce the Latin Vulgate. This is evidenced by St. Augustine’s vehement disagreement with Jerome’s initial decision to “violate” his papal commission and translate from the Hebrew OT rather than the Septuagint - as Damasus had commanded him,and spoke openly that he (Jerome) did not think the deuterocanonicals were scripture.

But never before had the Church spoke so authoritatively as at Trent, when it used the following words:

"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 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."

That is pretty definitive 🙂
 
Hello Wed2Catholic (and anyone else interested),

You were saying that . . . .
I have been reading Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers in order to learn the views of early church history.
Click to expand...
I suggested on a different thread for someone else to consider listening to some Kimberly Hahn audios as they are very clear. Well it is applicable to this thread too. Why?

I just checked St. Joseph Communications Podcasts and they are giving a FREE download of Kimberly Hahn’s at saintjoepodcast.com/! Thank you St. Joseph Communications.

I have not heard this testimony of Kimberly’s but I have heard others and she states before her becoming Catholic she too was engrossed in reading Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers. As a matter of fact it was too Catholic for her and out of frustration (at what I call the “Catholic-ness” of the early Church Fathers) she literally threw her copy.

I would suspect she mentions this on this testimony too but I will have to download it and find out which I will actually do shortly.

This free download will only be available for several days so I’d consider downloading and listening to it NOW.

God bless.
 
Cathoholic said:
Hello Wed2Catholic (and anyone else interested),

This free download will only be available for several days so I’d consider downloading and listening to it NOW.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I will look into it.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top