The Canon & Catholicism

[De_Maria]

The source given in the link says though not Canonical. It is though, not thought. He is saying he is referring to it despite it not being Canonical.

Your problem, without meaning any disrespect, is that you think too highly of your opinions. We follow the opinions of the Catholic Church. The one which Jesus Christ established to lead us to salvation.

The Catholic Church has no problems with anything St. Gregory said. Nor do we.

 

[jcrichton]

The source given in the link says though not Canonical. It is though, not thought. He is saying he is referring to it despite it not being Canonical.

Hi!

Thank you for noting that; I actually did think that something was left out… I read it as being “thought not” while the text actually states “though not.”

…still did you noticed the note that was inserted next to the text?:

Note: Cited by Cosin, Scholast. Hist. of Canon, c. viii. art. xcix. where some attempts at reconciling such statements with the decree of the Council of Trent are discussed. The same work contains a general review of authorities on the Canon of H. S. a subject too extensive for a mere note.], (same frame reference: lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

)
Does this not give you pause? Do you not read that the statement was a singular statement and that it was being countered by a “Council” which was studying the argument/issue of the Canon of the Bible and addressing, amongst other things, this particular statement?

If your efforts is to simply show that there was in deed a Pope that put into writing his thoughts about what was being argued, then yes, you’ve successfully have achieved that.

Does that means that he made a pronouncement on the Canonicity of such Writings… well, that fully falls short of demonstrating such.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pablope]

Claims are made that Pope Damasus ratified the local councils. If that is true then Gregory indicates he did not accept at least one of the books as not canonical. If the canon was not set until the Council of Trent, the Protestant reformers did not depart from a dogmatically decreed canon.

Depends on what is meant by “canonical”…which those in the early centuries had a different understanding of what is canonical to our/your understanding of the word “canonical.”

i think this gives an idea of what is meant by “canonical” when stated in those early documents:

catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.

 

[SyCarl]

Your problem, without meaning any disrespect, is that you think too highly of your opinions. We follow the opinions of the Catholic Church. The one which Jesus Christ established to lead us to salvation.

The Catholic Church has no problems with anything St. Gregory said. Nor do we.

With respect to authority, much is said that Protestants rely on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. However, that is exactly what Catholics must do establish the authority of the Church they rely on. How do you know the Church has the authority it claims without you interpreting passages like Matthew 16:18-19. So it rests on your opinion. Your opinion may be influenced by what the Catholic Church says but you must still make a conclusion on your own. Otherwise it would be the Church saying it has authority simply because it says it does.You get into a circular argument.

 

[FatherSebastian]

Hello friends,

I’m having a conversation with someone, and I wanted to get some opinions on some of the content. I mentioned the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage where the Canon was established, and also mentioned regarding 2 Timothy about how the Scriptures Paul was talking about were the ones from Timothy’s youth. This is the response from a Sola Scriptura advocate;

"If Hippo and Carthage made decrees binding on the whole Church (which they didn’t according to the Catholic Encyclopedia because they were provincial, local councils) how is it that Pope Leo X and Clement VII went against their canon by approving works which taught against it? As did Jimenez and Cajatan (and many others). Cajatan even specifically said that Carthage was a provincial council to be corrected by Jerome (quote provided in my last reply). We’re these all heretics?

Also, what about he fact that that statement on canon from the council at Rome, attributed to Damasus, is recorded centuries later in the Galasian Decree (6th century) and is possibly not original to that council? As a matter of fact there is no formal written record of what happened at Rome in 382, so at best all of this is speculative. As a matter of fact, it was Damasus who commissioned the Latin Vulgate from Jerome who rejected the deuterocanonical books as scripture! But again, even if it IS authentic, are these later Cardinals and Popes heretics for not teaching the same Canon?

And please tell me how a Jewish person 50 years before Jesus knew that 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were both scripture in a way that is consistent with the fact that the deuterocanonical books were not considered scripture by the Jews and many Church Fathers."

What would you say in response to the above? I have some ideas, but I wanted to check in here and get the opinions of others.

After skimming down through the responses I am shocked at how Sola Declarata they are. Ok, I made up that term to get your attention. Listen, councils don’t make Tradition. They simply enunciate what is believed by the church as known by those who attend the council. Thus, the councils of North Africa are simply stating what is the canon of the local church.

Now, what is canon? Canon is rule/practice. A canon is not imposed upon the church. The church, at a council, enunciates its canon. Lex Orandi. Lex Credendi. What a local parish/diocese was reading on a Sunday, the lectionary cycle, is the “canon” of that church. The liturgical practice of the churches is what eventually gave rise to a common liturgical practice and a common lectionary cycle which eventually gave rise to a common canon which eventually gave rise to the discussion we are now having.

Haven’t any of you ever read Eusebius on the canon?

Fr. Sebastian Carnazzo
steliasmelkite.org

 

[De_Maria]

With respect to authority, much is said that Protestants rely on their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

True.

However, that is exactly what Catholics must do establish the authority of the Church they rely on. How do you know the Church has the authority it claims without you interpreting passages like Matthew 16:18-19. So it rests on your opinion. Your opinion may be influenced by what the Catholic Church says but you must still make a conclusion on your own. Otherwise it would be the Church saying it has authority simply because it says it does.You get into a circular argument.

There’s a big difference.

First of all, the Protestant version is circular. The Catholic is not. Let me explain.

a. A Protestant says, “The Bible alone says so.” That is circular. Only one authoritative source is relied upon. In essence, that authority is the person interpreting the Scripture. Yourself. Because Scripture can’t tell you if you are wrong.

b. A Catholic says, “It has been taught by the Church, in Sacred Tradition and Scripture, from the time of the Apostles.” Note the many sources of evidence referenced.

i. The Church is a reference to the centuries worth of Teaching from eminent Theologists and Authorities in the Church who have written about the Doctrines of Christ through the centuries. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they take us deeper into the Teachings of Christ.

ii. Sacred Tradition is a reference to the Teachings of Jesus Christ which preceded the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament is written based upon these Commandments of Christ.

iii. And then there’s Scripture. The Catholic Church is the source of the New Testament Scripture and She it is who put the Bible together and ensures that it is interpreted consistently, expressing a message consistent with the Traditions passed down by Jesus Christ.

Second of all, the Protestant version is an example of self-pride. Protestants will not accept anything they can’t understand themselves.

Whereas, Catholics accept the authority of Christ through the Church and will not place their own understanding over that taught by the Church which Scripture describes as the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

I hope that helps.

 

[jcrichton]

With respect to authority, much is said that Protestants rely on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. However, that is exactly what Catholics must do establish the authority of the Church they rely on. How do you know the Church has the authority it claims without you interpreting passages like Matthew 16:18-19. So it rests on your opinion. Your opinion may be influenced by what the Catholic Church says but you must still make a conclusion on your own. Otherwise it would be the Church saying it has authority simply because it says it does.You get into a circular argument.

Hi!

…it would be a similar situation if today’s Catholics would remove two thousand years of Church history from their Faith base.

…since we have Apostolic Succession, what the Apostles and their successors taught has been maintained throughout the centuries… on the other hand, Protestants in deed must interpret not only Scriptures but also Church history according to their preconceptions in order to glue together the pieces from which they form their theologies…

There’s no other way to interpret St. Matthew 16:18-19 other than Jesus’ Delegating His Authority to Cephas… you can dance around the issue all you want but it boils down to accepting Christ at His Word or accepting the interpretation of “xyz” scholars/theologian who need to redefine Jesus’ Word to fit their construct which inherently rejects Jesus’ Word in order to give credence to protestant (both present and past) interpretation…

…and yes, it is a circular argument which has been created to highjack Jesus’ Authority, dismiss His Election of Cephas, and graduate every protestant thought into “what the Word of God really means to say.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

After skimming down through the responses I am shocked at how Sola Declarata they are. Ok, I made up that term to get your attention. Listen, councils don’t make Tradition. They simply enunciate what is believed by the church as known by those who attend the council. Thus, the councils of North Africa are simply stating what is the canon of the local church.

Now, what is canon? Canon is rule/practice. A canon is not imposed upon the church. The church, at a council, enunciates its canon. Lex Orandi. Lex Credendi. What a local parish/diocese was reading on a Sunday, the lectionary cycle, is the “canon” of that church. The liturgical practice of the churches is what eventually gave rise to a common liturgical practice and a common lectionary cycle which eventually gave rise to a common canon which eventually gave rise to the discussion we are now having.

Haven’t any of you ever read Eusebius on the canon?

Fr. Sebastian Carnazzo
steliasmelkite.org

Hi!

…I think that for the more thick of us it would help if you expand on your question, what is it that Eusebius contributed that would shed light on the argument on this thread?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Melchior_1]

Thank you all for your responses. I must admit, I find myself more confused after reading some of these answers.

My next question(s) is what’s the difference between Damasus saying “these are the books of the Bible” and Gregory saying otherwise? Is one speaking infallibly? Neither? Is the Canon fluid like some people are suggesting here, subject to the authority of Rome? Is Trent the be-all and end all of the Catholic Canon (and how does one answer Protestant claims if so?)

I too am curious about “Eusebius” and what it entails.

 

[po18guy]

Ask which “Protestant ecumenical council” determined that the 39 book Hebrew canon was correct. It, of course, was not a council, but a single ego-driven man 1,500 years after Christ in Germany. That 39 book canon was set by the Pharisees - see what Jesus had to say about them in Matthew 23. Seven times over.

 

[jas84173]

I actually agree with the Orthodox regarding the Canon who uses the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint.

 

[ajcstr]

I actually agree with the Orthodox regarding the Canon who uses the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint.

Is that where the OT difference comes in? I figured that the Eastern churches would have never used the Latin Vulgate but did the “Latin” Church have a different version of the Septuagint to begin with? Also as the Latin Church had the Vulgate all those years, did the Greek church have a complete Greek Bible or was the issue of a Canon not addressed in the East.

 

[Ubenedictus]

A comment was made about any Pope who rejected any of the books. Gregory commented that 1 Maccabees was not canonical when he referred to it. He was Pope after the African councils and the Council of Rome that supposedly set the canon.

Not canonical simply means the book isn’t\wasn’t used in church liturgy, not that it isn’t scripture, that is why he clearly says the book was read for the edification of the faithful.

Words and meaning change with time, in the ancient church a book isn’t canonical if it isn’t read in the liturgy, that doesn’t mean it isn’t scripture or it shouldnt be read for edification.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Thank you all for your responses. I must admit, I find myself more confused after reading some of these answers.

My next question(s) is what’s the difference between Damasus saying “these are the books of the Bible” and Gregory saying otherwise? Is one speaking infallibly? Neither? Is the Canon fluid like some people are suggesting here, subject to the authority of Rome? Is Trent the be-all and end all of the Catholic Canon (and how does one answer Protestant claims if so?)

I too am curious about “Eusebius” and what it entails.

Actually the canon was fluid, the canon was simply the books the fathers of a particular church accepted, that continued till each regional council started to name the books that should be considered scripture and declaring other prohibited. Carthage and rome and hippo all produced similar lists to be considered to be read in church. Those books are current found in catholic bibles.

To be continued.

 

[Ubenedictus]

At times an odd case occur (i think it happened often), some book considered scripture may not make it to a local church’s liturgical cycle, i.e it wasn’t read in the liturgy. It may be read privately, even used in theological disputations and quoted often by the local bishop, it is considered to be scripture and valuable for edification but it didnt have a place in the liturgy so it is scripture but not canonical. This is because canonical simply means “used in liturgy”. Sometimes certain scripture never made it to the liturgy hence are not canonical.
Damascus and innocent www.bible-researcher.com/innocent.html list the books considered scripture in the roman church and available to be used in liturgy WHILE pope gregory is saying that in his time macabees wasn’t read in church liturgy hence not canonical though he notes it edify the faithful and quotes it in disputes thus it is scripture.
They do not contradict each other, the point is that macabees was liturgy in damascus’ time and wasn’t in gregory’s.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Is that where the OT difference comes in? I figured that the Eastern churches would have never used the Latin Vulgate but did the “Latin” Church have a different version of the Septuagint to begin with? Also as the Latin Church had the Vulgate all those years, did the Greek church have a complete Greek Bible or was the issue of a Canon not addressed in the East.

The east didnt always have the current number of books in the bibles…it was added progressively and regionaly and sometimes much after the west had settled their own canon.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I actually agree with the Orthodox regarding the Canon who uses the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint.

They didnt always have the current number of books.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Claims are made that Pope Damasus ratified the local councils. If that is true then Gregory indicates he did not accept at least one of the books as not canonical. If the canon was not set until the Council of Trent, the Protestant reformers did not depart from a dogmatically decreed canon.

1. As I explained earlier, canonical in gregorys time simply meant 'not in the church’s liturgical calender, it didn’t mean not scripture or rejected or not to be read.
2. Before the time of trent both pope and ecumenical council(think florence) had clearly laid down what is scripture and could be considered for liturgy so the protestant leaders departed from decreed canons when they rejected what was already accept and decreed. You can reject scripture already decreed that is disobedience in the least.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Thank you all for your responses. I must admit, I find myself more confused after reading some of these answers.

My next question(s) is what’s the difference between Damasus saying “these are the books of the Bible” and Gregory saying otherwise?

Already answered

Is one speaking infallibly? Neither?

Neither speaks infallibly, the council of florence had more authority

Is the Canon fluid like some people are suggesting here, subject to the authority of Rome?

It was fluid in thd 1st, 2nd and 3rd century, not so today or 500yrs ago

Is Trent the be-all and end all of the Catholic Canon (and how does one answer Protestant claims if so?)

Apart from the regional councils of hippo and cathage and the papal letter of innocent another and even more weighty is the ecumenical council of florence which clearly sets 73 book and yet the protestant form their own canon

 

[Melchior_1]

1. As I explained earlier, canonical in gregorys time simply meant 'not in the church’s liturgical calender, it didn’t mean not scripture or rejected or not to be read

Pardon me asking, but can you provide a link or citation which explains this?