scholars claim not all letters are written by paul.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephentlig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me clarify:

As a faithful Catholic, I accept the teaching of the Councils, the Popes, and the Catechism as authoritative. However, the teaching of a Council, Pope or Catechism can be either part of the ordinary magisterium or infallible. Not that many things have been formally defined as infallible. I’m not saying that you should dismiss doctrine that is not defined as infallible or treat it as unimportant – quite the contrary.

I’ll add that so-called orthodox Catholics are pretty quick to call the teachings of Vatican II – an ecumenical council that was duly convoked and presided over by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI – as “merely pastoral” and dismiss any of its teachings that they disagree with as “confused” or worse. Even if conciliar teaching is non-dogmatic/non-infallible, it’s still something to be taken seriously. It may be subject to interpretation, revision or change over time, but it’s still important.

As I looked at the anathema in the conciliar teaching on the canon of scripture, the author of each of the books contained in the New Testament canon is not defined as infallible but rather the “contents” of the canonical books.
 
scratchin his head diggerdomer did you, or did you not say this to me in a previous post?
Keep scratching and keep reading. You tell me once you’ve read it enough times to understand it. I think I was very clear in what I said. If anyone except you has a problem understanding, please let me know and I will be glad to clarify.

Keep on scratchin’!
 
As I looked at the anathema in the conciliar teaching on the canon of scripture, the author of each of the books contained in the New Testament canon is not defined as infallible but rather the “contents” of the canonical books.
I agree.

One of the requirements for being an infallible part of a dogmatic definition is that the Pope or council must have directly intended to resolve the particular issue involved. So unless the authorship of the Pauline epistles was in question at the time of the Council of Trent, it isn’t possible that the council resolved this question, much less resolved it infallibly.
 
Again we see our brothers and sisters trying to weave their way in and out of infallible doctrine just so they can justify their evil deed of debating whether or not the letters have Pauline authorship. the issue for authorship at hand has been resolved and it has been resolved with the words below.

**fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, **

you see…this qoute does not say ‘‘Fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul with the exception of the letter to the hebrews’’

this says ‘‘Fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle’’

it does not say ‘‘Fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, but the one to the hebrews one of his mates at the time wrote it for him’’

no no no no, it clearly says ‘‘FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE’’.

“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” *Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400). *

Luke, I praise God that at least one person came in and agreed.
but thing is is that according to Catholic apologist John Salza those councils where indeed binding and authoritive. we are taught by the church that the canon of scripture was decided in the councils I qouted in previous posts, and these qoutes are infallible doctrine too.

"This means that, if the canon of Scripture is infallible, its determination had to come from an infallible source as well.’’ John Salza ( Catholic apologist )

again to further sweep up the dust and put a lid on this subject I shall e-mail him with this question.

God bless
Stephen <3
 
Hi luke, yes your right the final and definitive council for the canon of Scripture was held by the the council of trent in the 15thc.

but in this document they also recognise the infallible consent of the fathers too.
enjoy the document. God bless and have a good easter

Stephen

‘‘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; or even contrary to the **unanimous consent of the Fathers;’’ **

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 See presiding therein,—keeping this 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 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; 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. **

bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
 
Again we see our brothers and sisters trying to weave their way in and out of infallible doctrine just so they can justify their evil deed of debating whether or not the letters have Pauline authorship. the issue for authorship at hand has been resolved and it has been resolved with the words below.

**fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, **

you see…this qoute does not say ‘‘Fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul with the exception of the letter to the hebrews’’

this says ‘‘Fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle’’

it does not say ‘‘Fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, but the one to the hebrews one of his mates at the time wrote it for him’’

no no no no, it clearly says ‘‘FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE’’.

“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” *Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400). *

Luke, I praise God that at least one person came in and agreed.
but thing is is that according to Catholic apologist John Salza those councils where indeed binding and authoritive. we are taught by the church that the canon of scripture was decided in the councils I qouted in previous posts, and these qoutes are infallible doctrine too.

"This means that, if the canon of Scripture is infallible, its determination had to come from an infallible source as well.’’ John Salza ( Catholic apologist )

again to further sweep up the dust and put a lid on this subject I shall e-mail him with this question.

God bless
Stephen <3
I think that most Catholic scholars would consider the inclusion of the fourteen Pauline epistles to be infallible, but I don’t know that all would. The Church does not provide a list of those things that are infallible and those that are not. But assuming for the sake of this discussion that the inclusion of all fourteen Pauline epistles was infallible, it does not follow that every word spoken or written in the course of that process carries the same infallibility. The text of the Council of Trent’s Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures says that the list of books is provided because the Council “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.” The council said it was anathema to reject the books listed as canonical. Authorship was not addressed.

If there is any doubt that not every word of that declaration is infallible, simple read on to the next section. The council goes on to forbid commercial publishers from printing the Bible without the Church’s express permission. Does anyone think that was an infallible decree?

The Pope, his commission and Catholic theologians and clergy everywhere have discssed and debated the authorship of the books of the bible. Discussing the historical origins of Scripture does not detract from the inspired nature of scripture, and is not forbidden by the Church
 
I think that most Catholic scholars would consider the inclusion of the fourteen Pauline epistles to be infallible, but I don’t know that all would. The Church does not provide a list of those things that are infallible and those that are not. But assuming for the sake of this discussion that the inclusion of all fourteen Pauline epistles was infallible, it does not follow that every word spoken or written in the course of that process carries the same infallibility. The text of the Council of Trent’s Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures says that the list of books is provided because the Council “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.” The council said it was anathema to reject the books listed as canonical. Authorship was not addressed.

If there is any doubt that not every word of that declaration is infallible, simple read on to the next section. The council goes on to forbid commercial publishers from printing the Bible without the Church’s express permission. Does anyone think that was an infallible decree?

The Pope, his commission and Catholic theologians and clergy everywhere have discssed and debated the authorship of the books of the bible. Discussing the historical origins of Scripture does not detract from the inspired nature of scripture, and is not forbidden by the Church
Authorship was not addressed.
authorship was indeed addressed its just people taking their own meaning of the text.
the text of ‘‘fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul’’ is in itself allegorical to the authorship of Paul.

‘‘fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul’’ It is quite clear that anyone saying ‘‘it doesnt say authorship’’ is giving their eisegesis on the text.

if the scholars, Popes and clergy indeed recognise the infallible canon that Paul wrote the letters then there is no need for them to debate whether or not he did indeed write them.
as the Holy Spirit has indeed shown us that he has ascribed those letters to St.Paul.

to debate whether or not Paul wrote the letters (and should you be the one in the debate who beleives he didnt write the letters,) then you claim the holy spirit to be in error.
as a scholar who beleives in the canon infallibility and yet also beleives that the fourteen epistles where not ascribed to him, is absolutely ridiculous… and cannot claim themselves to be in full obedience to the Church.

to debate the subject on the basis that your helping these lapsed scholars come back to the realisation that by having a belief that not all epistles where given authorship to St.Paul is absolutely fine of course.

discussing the historical origins is fine yes, but not when the discussion is one pertaining to saint paul not writing the letters, as the council of trent 1546 absolutely forbid it.

God bless
Stephen<3
 
OK, one last try:

I’ve read and carefully considered the text that is cited from the Council of Trent. I do not dispute that Trent defined the New Testament canon, that is, what books should be considered the inspired New Testament writings. That seems unambiguous. In the course of doing so, they attribute those writings to various authors. It does not appear that Trent was trying to resolve the matter of who the authors were, and so I don’t think that this issue was authoritatively defined. I’m a lawyer by profession (Ph.D. genetics, J.D.), and I read and interpret texts for a living, but hey, I’m no more authoritative in terms of interpreting conciliar texts than you are, so you are welcome to disagree.

If I’m wrong, fire off a letter to the Pope and try to have me excommunicated for heresy. I’m in the Diocese of San Jose, CA, so you might want to write a nastygram to my bishop too.

I suggest that those who are accusing me and others here of bad faith, no faith, Satanic urgings, whatever, read Richard Gaillardetz, “By What Authority”, which deals with the magisterium, infallibility, and such things. I also suggest that you take a great big chill pill. You are way too quick to smell the “smoke of Satan” when people disagree with your point of view.
 
OK, one last try:

I’ve read and carefully considered the text that is cited from the Council of Trent. I do not dispute that Trent defined the New Testament canon, that is, what books should be considered the inspired New Testament writings. That seems unambiguous. In the course of doing so, they attribute those writings to various authors. It does not appear that Trent was trying to resolve the matter of who the authors were, and so I don’t think that this issue was authoritatively defined. I’m a lawyer by profession (Ph.D. genetics, J.D.), and I read and interpret texts for a living, but hey, I’m no more authoritative in terms of interpreting conciliar texts than you are, so you are welcome to disagree.

If I’m wrong, fire off a letter to the Pope and try to have me excommunicated for heresy. I’m in the Diocese of San Jose, CA, so you might want to write a nastygram to my bishop too.

I suggest that those who are accusing me and others here of bad faith, no faith, Satanic urgings, whatever, read Richard Gaillardetz, “By What Authority”, which deals with the magisterium, infallibility, and such things. I also suggest that you take a great big chill pill. You are way too quick to smell the “smoke of Satan” when people disagree with your point of view.
It does not appear that Trent was trying to resolve the matter of who the authors were, and so I don’t think that this issue was authoritatively defined.
Adcowboy, first of all nobody is accusing you of bad faith, sometimes in our unawareness we are being disobedient to the church, and we are unawares, However when the truth is pointed out to us we must obey. The council of trent did resolve whos author it was with the words ‘‘fourteen epistles of the apostle paul’’.

Many of our Lords infallible truths are now being treated as traditions within his church, and this is one of them ( another one is the wearing of the veil ) people saying that the letters were ‘‘traditionally ascribed to Paul’’

nope, infallibly ascribed to Paul with the words ‘‘fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul’’

I am going to send a letter to his holiness on these matters for sure.
I have no PHD and I never even graduated highschool, yet its clear to me that they are ascribed to Paul. even you can see it yet it seems your refusing to accept it.

God bless you
Stephen <3
 
OK, one last try:

I’ve read and carefully considered the text that is cited from the Council of Trent. I do not dispute that Trent defined the New Testament canon, that is, what books should be considered the inspired New Testament writings. That seems unambiguous. In the course of doing so, they attribute those writings to various authors. It does not appear that Trent was trying to resolve the matter of who the authors were, and so I don’t think that this issue was authoritatively defined. I’m a lawyer by profession (Ph.D. genetics, J.D.), and I read and interpret texts for a living, but hey, I’m no more authoritative in terms of interpreting conciliar texts than you are, so you are welcome to disagree.

If I’m wrong, fire off a letter to the Pope and try to have me excommunicated for heresy. I’m in the Diocese of San Jose, CA, so you might want to write a nastygram to my bishop too.

I suggest that those who are accusing me and others here of bad faith, no faith, Satanic urgings, whatever, read Richard Gaillardetz, “By What Authority”, which deals with the magisterium, infallibility, and such things. I also suggest that you take a great big chill pill. You are way too quick to smell the “smoke of Satan” when people disagree with your point of view.
I read it the same way you do. The council’s intent was to identify the books of the canon. The epistle are referred to as the epistles of Paul as a means of identification. Authorship cannot be infallibly defined because it was not addressed.

Its pretty clear that the Church reads it the same way, or the Pope would not have publically questioned Paul’s authorship of the pastoral letters.
 
Does not having author ascribed to most of the books of the Bible make those books less inspired? Of course not. since when is authorship the prerequisite for inspiration.! Never!
 
OK, one last try:

I’ve read and carefully considered the text that is cited from the Council of Trent. I do not dispute that Trent defined the New Testament canon, that is, what books should be considered the inspired New Testament writings. That seems unambiguous. In the course of doing so, they attribute those writings to various authors. It does not appear that Trent was trying to resolve the matter of who the authors were, and so I don’t think that this issue was authoritatively defined. I’m a lawyer by profession (Ph.D. genetics, J.D.), and I read and interpret texts for a living, but hey, I’m no more authoritative in terms of interpreting conciliar texts than you are, so you are welcome to disagree.

If I’m wrong, fire off a letter to the Pope and try to have me excommunicated for heresy. I’m in the Diocese of San Jose, CA, so you might want to write a nastygram to my bishop too.

I suggest that those who are accusing me and others here of bad faith, no faith, Satanic urgings, whatever, read Richard Gaillardetz, “By What Authority”, which deals with the magisterium, infallibility, and such things. I also suggest that you take a great big chill pill. You are way too quick to smell the “smoke of Satan” when people disagree with your point of view.
You’re right, Trent was “simply” defining, definitively, what books were in the canon of Scripture. Not that there was anything new, of course, they defined what the Church had been using since the early centuries.

I second the recommendation of yours regarding the book by Gaillardetz. He’s a very good writer and theologian imho particularly about topics regarding ecclesiology (also has written wonderful material on marriage).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top