Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[lanman87]

The problem @lanman87 is that what a Pope writes is the Pope’s own personal opinion. Unless he invokes infallibility in faith and morals. Saint Gregory the Great did neither.

So it is possible to become Pope and disagree with the Council of Rome?
Does this mean I can become Catholic in good standing and go around telling fellow Catholics that l believe that 1 Maccabees isn’t part of the Canon?

 

[adf417]

If i may-

So it is possible to become Pope and disagree with the Council of Rome?

Yes since the council of Rome was not an ecumenical council. But if you mean by “disagree with the council of Rome” in that this disagreement becomes a disagreement of the council of Trent then no, since it was an ecumenical council.

Does this mean I can become Catholic in good standing and go around telling fellow Catholics that l believe that 1 Maccabees isn’t part of the Canon?

1st the quick answer is yes you can. This is what has been described as “cafeteria catholic”, pic and choose what you believe.

2nd im not sure this would constitute as being in “good standing”. That one would be above my pay grade.

3rd there is quite a difference in a lay Catholic going around telling Others something against what the church teaches vs. an ordained minister doing this. The minister, by means of his ordination, is a teaching representative of the church, the lay person is not. The ordained minister will eventually be stripped of his faculties (not sure of terminology here) if he does not heed correction, the lay minister, like myself, not being an official teacher, will be continuously corrected and rebuked, sometimes never heeding their pastor’s advice. Sadly, this is quite prevalent in the church.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Yes since the council of Rome was not an ecumenical council. But if you mean by “disagree with the council of Rome”

I’m actually trying to put some puzzle pieces together on all this. In Post 141 he makes the point that the Council of Rome was a general council (and not a local synod) to settle the canon of Scripture. With the understanding that the Council of Rome also canonized Maccabees (according to the Gelasian Decree) as well as the New Testament.

Gregory the Great was Bishop or Rome so would the Council of Rome have authority over Gregory? Even if the rest of the church hadn’t yet canonized Maccabees would it be considered as Canon in Rome, if indeed the Roman Council declared it to be canon?

It seems to me that there are a few possibilities (or a combination of possibilities) as to how Gregory could openly declare 1 Maccabees to not be scripture.

1. The Roman council wasn’t authoritative, even for the clergy in the local Roman church
2. The Roman council didn’t canonize 1 Maccabees, in which case the Gelasian Decree is wrong in attributing that function to the Roman Council.
3. That Gregory was going against accepted understanding of the Roman church, in which case, how could someone who blatantly goes against church teaching become and remain the Bishop of Rome. And not only did he become and remain Pope but he is considered one the greatest Popes in history.

As I’ve went back and forth with Catholics and read various Catholic apologetic material I been told that the canon was closed in Rome in 382, in Hippo in 393, in Carthage in 397, in Florence in the late 15th Century, and the others say there was not official canon until Trent. It seems there is a different answer, depending on who you are talking to and what point they are trying to defend.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

You put the answer beautifully, @adf417. Thank you.

As for @lanman87,

I’ll admit, defending the canon isn’t my strong suit.

 

[lanman87]

1st the quick answer is yes you can. This is what has been described as “cafeteria catholic”, pic and choose what you believe.

Just as a side note… If I were to attempt to become a Catholic wouldn’t I have to vow to believe whatever the church teaches. And that if in my conversations about becoming a Catholic I told my sponsor/Priest that I believe everything the Catholic church teaches, except the acceptance of the Deuterocanon that I would be told sorry, you have to accept every belief?

 

[whatistrue]

If I were to attempt to become a Catholic wouldn’t I have to vow to believe whatever the church teaches

Not quite, at least as I understand it. The relevant part of the Profession of Faith whereby a previously validly baptized Christian enters full communion with the Catholic Church is “…all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” (emphasis mine). There are different levels of teaching, and not everything that is taught is proclaimed as revealed by God.

ETA: I don’t know if that would include the acceptance of the Deuterocanon or not - perhaps someone else will be able to enlighten us both.

 

[lanman87]

There are different levels of teaching, and not everything that is taught is proclaimed as revealed by God.

But doesn’t the church teach that anything declared as dogma by a church council or the Pope is what has been revealed by God? In other words, I could disagree about what kind of music is played in church, what color the carpets are, when times the church meets, and other trivial matters. But if I said I retain the Protestant position on the Deuterocanon (which is Dogma) then I would not be allowed “in the club” so to speak.

 

[whatistrue]

But doesn’t the church teach

As I said in my edit, I don’t know if the Canon of Scripture is at that level or not. I do believe that the Church does not condemn those Orthodox (maybe even Eastern Catholic??) Churches with larger Scriptural canons than the one in the RCC, at least not for that reason.

 

[adf417]

I’m actually trying to put some puzzle pieces together on all this. In Post 141 he makes the point that the Council of Rome was a general council (and not a local synod) to settle the canon of Scripture.

Maybe we are confusing terms. the council of Rome was not an ecumenical council, a council of all bishops of the church. Im not sure what the difference of a general council or synod is. A person better familiar with canon law might could give you a better understanding of the authority of this sort of council.

Gregory the Great was Bishop or Rome so would the Council of Rome have authority over Gregory?

Not in the absolute sense.

Even if the rest of the church hadn’t yet canonized Maccabees would it be considered as Canon in Rome, if indeed the Roman Council declared it to be canon?

The city where the council is held does not typically have anything to do with special authority over that city. It is more likely just the city chosen to have the meeting because of the gelato.

• The Roman council wasn’t authoritative, even for the clergy in the local Roman church
• The Roman council didn’t canonize 1 Maccabees, in which case the Gelasian Decree is wrong in attributing that function to the Roman Council.
• That Gregory was going against accepted understanding of the Roman church, in which case, how could someone who blatantly goes against church teaching become and remain the Bishop of Rome. And not only did he become and remain Pope but he is considered one the greatest Popes in history.

You are feeling the pains of the Catholic church. The church does not like to call councils and dictate doctrines. Hence - Trent and its “anathemas”.

As I’ve went back and forth with Catholics and read various Catholic apologetic material I been told that the canon was closed in Rome in 382, in Hippo in 393, in Carthage in 397, in Florence in the late 15th Century, and the others say there was not official canon until Trent. It seems there is a different answer, depending on who you are talking to and what point they are trying to defend.

But I believe Trent was the only council with this language in its canon-

. . . 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.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

Just as a side note… If I were to attempt to become a Catholic wouldn’t I have to vow to believe whatever the church teaches. And that if in my conversations about becoming a Catholic I told my sponsor/Priest that I believe everything the Catholic church teaches, except the acceptance of the Deuterocanon that I would be told sorry, you have to accept every belief?

You have to vow to be OPEN to what the church teaches. The church knows we are all in different places when it comes to understanding. She cannot expect you to understand everything at one time. Just like the Trinity, you believe it because of your faith not because of your understanding. One day we will believe it not only through faith but also understanding.

Peace!!!

 

[adf417]

But if I said I retain the Protestant position on the Deuterocanon (which is Dogma) then I would not be allowed “in the club” so to speak.

As i said above it is dependent on your openness or your obstinance to the particular dogma.

If you are teaching your child that Jesus rose from the dead and your child looks at you funny and says “yeah right dad”, you are not going to just dismiss his position without working with him through his formative years, right? This is the Catholic position for all cafeteria catholics.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

The city where the council is held does not typically have anything to do with special authority over that city. It is more likely just the city chosen to have the meeting because of the gelato

hee hee, so what was the purpose of the local councils, in Rome and Hippo and Carthage? What you are saying almost makes it sound like they were giant think tanks were smart people would get together and ponder difficult things. And while whatever they came up with was communicated to others, but didn’t become binding on anyone? To use our modern terminology, they were influencers who affected change by their prominence and reputations and not judges who laid down laws and rules that had to be followed.

 

[adf417]

That sounds like a fair assessment. Im sure there is more perfect language but im good with this. :+1:t3:

Also, while they communicated to others their findings that probably would not have been their main goal as their finding went to the pope; probably with added hopes of turning their non-binding council into a more definitive papal declaration. Just my thoughts-

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_Jericho]

I didn’t say that all medeival theologians didn’t considered the Deuterocanoncial books to be part of the Old Testament. What I’m pointing out is that it wasn’t universally accepted. There seems to have been two schools of thought among Theologians/Bishops in the middle ages.

I hope you can see, or will see, how that makes Evangelical Protestants downright absurd in our eyes.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

I think I see where the problem is @Ianman87.

It seems that there’s a problem in understanding that with Catholics we operate under an and/both mindset and you guys operate under an either/or mindset.

In the Church, there’s room for diversity of opinion as long as certain essentials are held on common.

From what I saw in your previous posts, I see you may be frustrated in not getting a consistent answer from Catholics as you attempt to understand us. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[mcq72]

hope you can see, or will see, how that makes Evangelical Protestants downright absurd in our eyes.

Maybe I missed something, but are what about regular Protestants, or Lutherans or Anglicans?

 

[mcq72]

It seems that there’s a problem in understanding that with Catholics we operate under an and/both mindset and you guys operate under an either/or mindset.
In the Church, there’s room for diversity of opinion as long as certain essentials are held on common.

Well, the CC used to be a lot lot lot more under “and/both” mindset than now. Just take a look at Nicene decrees and Trents, right up to 1950 Assumption decree…no longer as free in diversity of thought, and a whole lot more “essentials”, with maybe more to come.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

The Assumption decree was in 1950, @mcq72. Considering the intolerance within the Protestant world, I find your accusation of ours problematic.

 

[commenter]

Maccabaeus2165:

It seems that there’s a problem in understanding that with Catholics we operate under an and/both mindset and you guys operate under an either/or mindset.
In the Church, there’s room for diversity of opinion as long as certain essentials are held on common.

Well, the CC used to be a lot lot lot more under “and/both” mindset than now. Just take a look at Nicene decrees and Trents, right up to 1954 Assumption decree…no longer free in diversity of thought, and a whole lot more “essentials”.

No, a principle tends not to be explicitly defined or clarified until it is challenged, by persons or new developments or information. This is also true in Protestantism, but more implicit.

 

[mcq72]

The Assumption decree was in 1950, @mcq72. Considering the intolerance within the Protestant world, I find your accusation of ours problematic

Yes. I edited my post for better clarification. I meant not as free in diversity as you used to be… I did not mean you do not have some diversity now, for you do, just not as much as before, for you have decreed, ruled, on a lot more.