Should the RCC consider adding books to the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrgiancola
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jrgiancola

Guest
I’d like to see a convention, perhaps Vatican III, reconsider adding some of the apochryphyl books to the Bible, especially those discovered in the past 70 years, of course under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Protoevangelium of James seems a good candidate for inclusion. Non-RCC religions would squeal, but who cares so long as the Holy Ghost wills the addition.:signofcross:
 
Are you serious? There’s literally no way that will happen. There are two reasons:

  1. *]For something to be part of the Catholic faith, it must have been believed from the time of the Apostles down to the present, unceasingly. That’s because we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all Truth (John 16:13), so at no point in the Church’s history has lacked the Truth.
    *]The canon is already defined. Trent made it crystal clear, though it was already clear before this point. The 72 Books are the only Books that shall ever be in the Bible.

    It’s a Protestant stereotype that Catholics can go around adding new doctrines they find interesting, or to change with the times. It’s a false stereotype. Just because the Church proclaimed the Trinity in a particular year doesn’t mean She didn’t believe it the entire time prior to that. Same with all of Her other beliefs – dogma definitions simply make what She already believes more readily understandable, and eliminate any confusion or controversy over the doctrine. The Catholic Church is quite literally powerless to revoke old dogma, or invent new dogma. If She ever did that, She’d be a false Church, period.
 
I’d like to see a convention, perhaps Vatican III, reconsider adding some of the apochryphyl books to the Bible, especially those discovered in the past 70 years, of course under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Protoevangelium of James seems a good candidate for inclusion. Non-RCC religions would squeal, but who cares so long as the Holy Ghost wills the addition.:signofcross:
The books discovered in the last 70 years, if they’re the ones that I’m thinking of, are the Nag Hammadi texts which contain 52 Gnostic books (including the Gospel of Thomas). These are not Christian writings, nor are they apostolic. These cannot be added to Scripture.

-Prophesy
 
I’d like to see a convention, perhaps Vatican III, reconsider adding some of the apochryphyl books to the Bible, especially those discovered in the past 70 years, of course under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Protoevangelium of James seems a good candidate for inclusion. Non-RCC religions would squeal, but who cares so long as the Holy Ghost wills the addition.:signofcross:
Sounds like the Gnostic books to me too… They were written well after the time of Christ and no one has ever considered them part of the Bible. They used the names of the apostles to make them sound legit, but they were written by completely different people in a completely different time…
 
I’d like to see a convention, perhaps Vatican III, reconsider adding some of the apochryphyl books to the Bible, especially those discovered in the past 70 years, of course under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Protoevangelium of James seems a good candidate for inclusion. Non-RCC religions would squeal, but who cares so long as the Holy Ghost wills the addition.:signofcross:
All public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Considering the Protoevangelicum of James was written much later, it would never be considered for possible inclusion.

In fact, the councils that originally defined the bible, starting with the council of Rome in 382 AD which originally defined the canon as we know it today (unless you are protestant then you would see it contains the full 72 books) had access to the Protoevangelicum of James and decided NOT to include it. Later councils and Popes, including,
  • Council of Hippo 393AD
  • Council of Carthage 397AD
  • Council of Trent 1546 AD
all confirm the same 72 books. If God wanted more books in the bible, they would have been included from the beginning.
 
I’d like to see a convention, perhaps Vatican III, reconsider adding some of the apochryphyl books to the Bible, especially those discovered in the past 70 years, of course under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Protoevangelium of James seems a good candidate for inclusion. Non-RCC religions would squeal, but who cares so long as the Holy Ghost wills the addition.:signofcross:
Are you the ‘mouthpiece’ of the Holy Spirit?

Silly me. I always thought that was the Magisterium.
 
The Holy Spirit is always revealing new inspirations to our church. I think the church should reconsider some of these ancient texts. I’m not a Gnostic, but we should remain open to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The Protoevangelium of James reveals some important information regarding our Blessed Mother, many of the doctrines we already believe about her. There’s nothing wrong with a new council convening to consider the matter. The Vatican would have the final say-so, of course. And who cares what the Protestants think? I don’t. And I know we do not just add things on the spur of the moment. I don’t need a lecture from anyone about this concept. And not all the books were written by Gnostics.
 
The Church will do what she does without (name removed by moderator)ut from either one of us. As it should be.
 
There’s nothing wrong with a new council convening to consider the matter. The Vatican would have the final say-so, of course. And who cares what the Protestants think? I don’t. And I know we do not just add things on the spur of the moment. I don’t need a lecture from anyone about this concept. And not all the books were written by Gnostics.
If not the Protestants, what about the Orthodox? Our relations are the best they’ve been in a thousand years, and although there’s a long way to go, do we really need to throw another obstacle into the negotiations right now? That said, there could be a tiny amount of wiggle room on something like Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees from the Orthodox canon, I suppose.
 
I just want to go on record as one Catholic who would not be opposed to the Vatican, feeling inspired by the Holy Spirit, to reconsider some of the ancient texts previously omitted. If the Holy Father or anyone in the Magesterium is reading this, you would have my support for a new council to consider the matter. IF the Holy Spirit wants to reveal something to our church, our relations with other religions is not even on the list of priorities. Ours IS the truest, most complete revelation from God about God. And I refuse to believe that God has ceased revealing further important information about Himself. It’s not like He has given us the entire story, every piece of information available. There may be things God has waited to reveal to us for His own reasons.
 
Example: some Catholics believe the Blessed Mother should be named “co - redemptrix.” I’m not sure how I feel about this right now, but the concept is the same: There may be new revelations that God wants to share with our church; I’m open to such revelations.
 
I just want to go on record as one Catholic who would not be opposed to the Vatican, feeling inspired by the Holy Spirit, to reconsider some of the ancient texts previously omitted. If the Holy Father or anyone in the Magesterium is reading this, you would have my support for a new council to consider the matter. IF the Holy Spirit wants to reveal something to our church, our relations with other religions is not even on the list of priorities. Ours IS the truest, most complete revelation from God about God. And I refuse to believe that God has ceased revealing further important information about Himself. It’s not like He has given us the entire story, every piece of information available. There may be things God has waited to reveal to us for His own reasons.
I don’t think the Holy Spirit will change His mind. It’s been considered and been deemed not divinely inspired.

It’s a nice book, but we have no way of knowing the accuracy of the detail. About the only thing we have some level of certainty on is that it wasn’t written by an older brother of Jesus 110 years or so after Jesus died, unless the older brother was writing it as a 150 -160 year old. How accurate would your memory be at that age anyway?
 
I’m pretty sure the Canon is not in fact officially closed. We have a list of books that are canonical, but not, I think, a definitive statement that there are no others.

That said, for a book to be added one would have to make the claim that it has always been regarded as inspired scripture throughout the history of the Church and has been taught to be such by the bishops in their ordinary magisterium. To my knowledge there is no such book that has not already been declared canonical.
 
I just want to go on record as one Catholic who would not be opposed to the Vatican, feeling inspired by the Holy Spirit, to reconsider some of the ancient texts previously omitted. If the Holy Father or anyone in the Magesterium is reading this, you would have my support for a new council to consider the matter. IF the Holy Spirit wants to reveal something to our church, our relations with other religions is not even on the list of priorities. Ours IS the truest, most complete revelation from God about God. And I refuse to believe that God has ceased revealing further important information about Himself. It’s not like He has given us the entire story, every piece of information available. There may be things God has waited to reveal to us for His own reasons.
The Catechism, at paragraph 66:
“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
So when you hear somebody talking about whether or not it is prudent to add another Marian dogma, they’re not saying, “let’s make up something new!” but “let’s better define this truth we have always believed.” We’ve always taken a view that Mary plays an indispensable role in Salvation. The question is just how best to define that to express that truth.
 
I’m pretty sure the Canon is not in fact officially closed. We have a list of books that are canonical, but not, I think, a definitive statement that there are no others.

That said, for a book to be added one would have to make the claim that it has always been regarded as inspired scripture throughout the history of the Church and has been taught to be such by the bishops in their ordinary magisterium. To my knowledge there is no such book that has not already been declared canonical.
The Fourth Session of the Council of Trent specifically listed “all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament.” That’s all, folks.
 
Example: some Catholics believe the Blessed Mother should be named “co - redemptrix.” I’m not sure how I feel about this right now, but the concept is the same: There may be new revelations that God wants to share with our church; I’m open to such revelations.
The function and authority of the Magisterium is in passing on the Apostolic Faith. As Catholics we believe there will be no public revelation between the death of the last apostle (already long past) and the Second Coming. There can be further revelations, but they will be of a private nature and never binding on all Christians.

Now, there is a process of doctrinal development in which people pray and think about the truths of the deposit of faith and come up with clarified ways of presenting it or with logical consequences of it. For example, Papal infallibility may not have been explicitly laid out in the 1st Century, but from what was revealed about the nature of the office of the bishop of Rome Medieval Christians deduced that the Pope could never bind the faithful to error in matters of faith and morals. The Magisterium then has the authority to look over these sorts of conclusions and accept or reject them. In the case of Papal authority the theory of Papal infallibility was definitively accepted and proclaimed a dogma of the faith at Vatican I.

The point is a “new” dogma of that sort is not truly new, but is a clarification or logical consequence of what has been believed by the Church since the time of the Apostles. If Mary were to be formally declared Coredemptrix (in my opinion an accurate and pious but ecumenically difficult title) this would be a development of this sort, not the canonization of an entirely new belief.

In much the same way if a book were to be added to the Canon of Scripture it would have to be as an expression or consequence of something Catholics have always believed.
 
The Fourth Session of the Council of Trent specifically listed “all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament.” That’s all, folks.
My fellow Belloc fan,

Your little quote appears to me to come from this statement of the Council of Trent: “Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it [the Council of Trent] receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both”

The document goes on to state: “It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.”

And later: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Nothing that I see which formally excludes any book not mentioned by Trent, only that the Church accepts all the books of Scripture and that all the books they list are Scripture.

If you’re interested, check out this blog post by Jimmy Akin, from which I lifted the Trent quotes: jimmyakin.org/2005/04/ad_simplicium_c.html
 
With that kind of thinking, you probably opposed deviating from the Tridentine mass and saying the mass in native languages. Vatican II, of course, felt inspired to do both. God will reveal what He wants, when He wants, to his true church: the RCC. I trust the church to make the correct decision. It’s never been agreed upon whether Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually wrote those books either, whether their students actually wrote them. It’s never been agreed upon that John actually wrote the Apocalypse.
 
Information on Infancy Gospel of James
The Infancy Narrative of James is also known as the Protevangelium of James. In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron says that the name Protevangelium “implies that most of the events recorded in this ‘initial gospel’ of James occur prior to those recorded in the gospels of the New Testament.” The gospel received this name when it was first published in the sixteenth century.

There are about one hundred and thirty Greek manuscripts containing the Infancy Gospel of James, but the vast majority of these come from the tenth century or later. The earliest known manuscript of the text was found in 1958; it is now kept in Geneva’s Bodmer Library. The manuscript dates to the third century; however, according to Cameron, “many of its readings seem to be secondary.”

Cameron identifies three different sources for the Infancy Gospel of James: extracanonical traditions, the Old Testament, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The mythical element of birth in a cave, for example, is an extracanonical also known to Justin Martyr. Cameron states of the author’s use of Jewish scriptures: “Not only are individual words, phrases, and even whole paragraphs reminiscent of the Septuagint; such discrete forms as the hymn and the lament of Anna also display conscious, direct ‘remembrance’ of the stories recorded in the scriptures.” Concerning the use of the canonical gospels, Cameron observes, “Frequently the respective passages in Matthew and Luke are harmonized into a single story in the Protevangelium of James; in some instances the two texts are conflated. It is by combining composite traditions with a harmony of the synoptic infancy stories that the Protevangelium of James has constructed the dramatic scenes of its gospel.”

F. F. Bruce writes of the Infancy Gospel of James (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, pp. 86-87):

There is, for example, the Protevangel of James, which begins with an account of the birth of Mary to Joachim and Anna in their old age, when they had given up all hope of having children. Like the infant Samuel in the Old Testament, Mary was dedicated by her grateful mother to the service of god in the temple, and there she was placed in [the] charge of the priest Zechariah. When she was twelve years old she was betrothed by her guardians to Joseph. The story of the angelic annunciation and virginal conception follows the nativity narratives of Luke and Matthew, with various embellishments: Mary’s chastity is vindicated, for example, by the ‘ordeal of jealousy’ prescribed in Numbers 5.11-28. In a cave near Bethlehem Mary gives birth to Jesus, Salome acting as midwife. When Herod fails to find the infant, after the visit of the wise men from the east, he tries to lay hands on the child John (later the Baptist), but when he too is not to be found (having been hidden with his mother Elizabeth in a hollow mountain) Herod has his father Zechariah put to death in the temple court.

In The Complete Gospels, Ronald Hock divides the Infancy Gospel of James into three parts. In the first eight chapters, there is the story of Mary’s own unique birth and childhood, wherein it is related that Anna, Mary’s mother, becomes pregnant only after supplication to God. In the second eight chapters, the story starts “with the crisis posed by Mary’s becoming a woman and thus her imminent pollution of the temple. The priests resolve the crisis by turning her over to a divinely chosen widower, the carpenter Joseph, who agrees to be her guardian, but refeuses to marry her.” When Mary becomes pregnant, a priest suspects Joseph and Mary of wrong-doing and put the two to a test, which they pass. In the last eight chapters, we hear of the birth of Jesus with the visit of midwifes, the hiding of Jesus from Herod in a feeding trough, and even the hiding of John from Herod in the hills with his mother Elizabeth. These legends are embellishments upon the stories given in Matthew and Luke.

The author claims to be James, the stepbrother of Jesus. The author cannot have actually been James because the author seems to be dependent upon Matthew and Luke. Only Matthew tells us about the massacre of the infants arranged by Herod, while only Luke tells us about the birth of John to Elizabeth. Concerning the question of how John escaped Herod’s wrath, Hock argues that the author “answered this question by having Zechariah choose death rather than tell of John’s whereabouts and by having Elizabeth flee to the hills with John.” Since James’ death at the hands of Ananias occured in 62 CE and since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed later, the Infancy Gospel of James must be pseudonymous.
 
According to Hock, a major development found in the Protevangelium of James is this: “Mary, the central character, is no longer a virgin in the ordinary sense of a young woman of marriageable age, but a virgin of extraordinary purity and unending duration.” Hock goes on to argue: “Indeed, Mary’s purity is so emphasized that it becomes thematic and thus answers the fundamental question which guides the narrative: why Mary, of all the virgins in Israel, was chosen to be the mother of the son of God. The answer: no one could have been any purer. Thus Anna transforms Mary’s bedroom into a sanctuary where she receives no impure food and is amused by the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews (6:5). When she turns three years of age, these young women escort her to the temple in Jerusalem where she spends the next nine years in absolute purity and is even fed by the hand on an angel (7:4-8:2). When, at age twelve, she is made the ward of Joseph, she spends her time spinning thread for the temple with the other virgins from Israel (10:1-12:1). When she is later suspected of impurity, she passes a test and has her innocence proclaimed by the high priest (15:1-16:7). Finally, when she gives birth to Jesus, two midwives certify that she remains a virgin (19:18-20:11). In short, it is through her purity that Mary fulfills the blessing which the priests made when she was only one year old: that she might be blessed with a blessing that could not be surpassed (6:9).”

Cameron also sees another theme in this infancy gospel: “In using and expanding the infancy narratives, the Protevangelium of James has carried forward the aretalogical tradition of the gospels, including in the traditional enumeration of heroic feats the birth of the holy family. The bucolic scenes in the narrative of Jesus’ birth recall other stories of the birth of ‘divine men’ in antiquity, and are part of that tradition of Christian propaganda which sought to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus among heroes and gods.”

The terminus a quo is set by the use of Matthew and Luke. The terminus ad quem is set by a reference from Origen and by the Bodmer papyrus. Within this range, a dating in the middle of the second century is most likely. This dating is suggested by the prevalence of harmonies of Matthew and Luke at this time, as shown from Justin Martyr. The Infancy Gospel of James itself may have been dependent on a harmony of Matthew and Luke, but in any case it stands in the harmonizing spirit of the era before the four canonical gospels were considered to be sacred scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top