The Canon of Scripture is Still Open?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manphibian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manphibian

Guest
In RCIA class last Wednesday they passed around some hand-outs, one of which claimed that, “For Catholics, technically, the Canon is still open. No books can be removed but more may be added. Such as books that weren’t declared heretical during the councils that determined the Canon of Scripture.” Is this correct?

Also, another handout made the book of Genisis out to be one big myth. Saying that Adam and Eve may have only been 2 of many people created by God, and may not have even been real people, since “Adam” means “man”. The way I understood it, I thought it was dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents and were real people. Am I Wrong?

I understand that the 7 days may or may not be literal days, but this handout sounded dogmatic saying that Genisis was written “millions and millions of years after the earth was made”. Why are people so quick to agree with the conclusions of science, when science itself hasn’t concluded anything?
 
I think this excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church will ansawer your first question. If you do not have a Catechism, buy one (green cover) and read it. It will tell you correctly what the Church teaches as opposed to the many who tell you what they want the Church to teach ( and yes, this is even true of many RCIA teachers).

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
P. ONE: PROFESSION OF FAITH, SEC. ONE: “I BELIEVE, WE BELIEVE”
CH. 2: GOD COMES TO MEET MAN, ART. 1: THE REVELATION OF GOD
III. CHRIST JESUS - MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION

III. CHRIST JESUS - "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS
OF ALL REVELATION"25
God has said everything in his Word
65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers
by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a
Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, 102
perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything;
there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross,
among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other),
he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word
and he has no more to say . . . because what he spoke before
to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by
giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning 516
God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty
not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not
fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the
desire for some other novelty.27 2717

There will be no further Revelation
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."28 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 94
centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations,
some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church.
They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to 84
improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more
fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the
Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these
revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to
the Church. 93
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass
or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in
certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base
themselves on such “revelations.”

(C)
 
Don’t believe anything that tries to say that hardly anythin miraculous in the bible can be taken literally.

Jesus rose from the dead and that is the most miraculous thing ever!

I have heard that the some of the books accepted by the Orthodox that are not in our Catholic Canon and were never defined as heretical or non scriptural could be recognized as part of the Canon if the Catholic Church ever deemed it the will of the Holy Spirit to do so.

There are however alot of books that have been taught as bding clearly not scripture. None of those books could ever be admitted.
 
What about some new book? What if a disciple of Christ wrote a new book set in modern times. Could such a book ever be inspired by the Holy Spirit and accepted into the Church canon?
 
Lief_Erikson said:
What about some new book? What if a disciple of Christ wrote a new book set in modern times. Could such a book ever be inspired by the Holy Spirit and accepted into the Church canon?
Click to expand...
No. One of the requirements the Church used to determine the canon, was whether the book was written by an apostle or a direct assistant (forgot the word they used). Since this is impossible today, and given that there is no new revelation coming, there would be no reason to add a new book to the Bible.
 
Manphibian said:
In RCIA class last Wednesday they passed around some hand-outs, one of which claimed that, “For Catholics, technically, the Canon is still open. No books can be removed but more may be added. Such as books that weren’t declared heretical during the councils that determined the Canon of Scripture.” Is this correct?

Also, another handout made the book of Genisis out to be one big myth. Saying that Adam and Eve may have only been 2 of many people created by God, and may not have even been real people, since “Adam” means “man”. The way I understood it, I thought it was dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents and were real people. Am I Wrong?

I understand that the 7 days may or may not be literal days, but this handout sounded dogmatic saying that Genisis was written “millions and millions of years after the earth was made”. Why are people so quick to agree with the conclusions of science, when science itself hasn’t concluded anything?
Click to expand...
The Church does teach that Adam and Eve is a myth, but that is not a bad thing. Myth here means their names may not have been Adam and Eve, and every little detail of the story may not be correct, but we are compelled to believe at a minimum that all humans are descendants of an original father and mother, and that they rejected God, and that they passed on original sin to all of their descendants.

As for “myth”, the meaning of which has been deformed in our secular society:

The primary meaning from the Compact Oxford Online:
1 a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural.
…and the primary meaning from the Merriam-Webster online:
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
A fairy tale, on the other hand, is not at all the same thing. A fairy tale includes deception or misleading information in their definitions. Myth does not.
 
awalt

I know that I should know this: Where does the Church teach that the Creation Accounts are myths?

Also, how far does the myth apply, that is, to which chapters?

In your judgment, how does the following quote fit with myth?

In the Summa, I 46. 2, On the contrary he says: “And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the
past…”

Also, if you have the time and energy please comment on my next question.

And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past…"

If this is a prophecy about the past, is this a common teaching by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church?

Is this similar to the Parables of Jesus?

Thanks!!!
 
Manphibian said:
In another handout made the book of Genisis out to be one big myth. Saying that Adam and Eve may have only been 2 of many people created by God, and may not have even been real people, since “Adam” means “man”. The way I understood it, I thought it was dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents and were real people. Am I Wrong?

**I learned the same thing. It is not dogma as far as I can see since a number of popes have spoken favoriably toward the concept of evolution. **

I understand that the 7 days may or may not be literal days, but this handout sounded dogmatic saying that Genisis was written “millions and millions of years after the earth was made”. Why are people so quick to agree with the conclusions of science, when science itself hasn’t concluded anything?
Click to expand...
Again, this is what i was taught as well, and what I have read in every RCIA set of teachings I’ve ever seen. There are some ultra conservative Catholics however who agree with the fundamentalist positon that creationism is correct. they have never presented any evidence to prove this. but for some its easier to just declare the entire bible inerrent like the fundamentalists do, than it is to negociate through the various literary forms in the bible
 
First, I would recommend the Ligouri system of RCIA, which is much more orthodox than whatever it is that you are getting.

Second, yes, we are required to believe that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman; polygenism (the idea that “Adam and Eve” stands for many people) is a heresy.

As to the canon of Scripture, the canon of the New Testament was closed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I, and the Old Testament was closed in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, in April of 1546. Nothing may be added to, or subtracted from, the Scriptures.
 
jmcrae said:
As to the canon of Scripture, the canon of the New Testament was closed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I, and the Old Testament was closed in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, in April of 1546. Nothing may be added to, or subtracted from, the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I was always under the impression that Trent was more about defining the Vulgate deuteros as canonical against the protestants, rather than insisting the canon was closed.

Reading the text of Session 4, I see anathema statements against removing or redacting scripture and a clear mention that the books listed are canonical and authoritative. But, I don’t see any explicit mention that nothing may be added to this canon, nor anathema’s against larger canons like the Orthodox have. I don’t think this necessarily means that we have an “open” canon like the mormons do, but I also don’t think this excludes other particular churches use of wider canons (any easterns able to offer insight?)
 
Jim_Baur said:
awalt

I know that I should know this: Where does the Church teach that the Creation Accounts are myths?

Also, how far does the myth apply, that is, to which chapters?

In your judgment, how does the following quote fit with myth?

In the Summa, I 46. 2, On the contrary he says: “And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the
past…”

Also, if you have the time and energy please comment on my next question.

And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past…"

If this is a prophecy about the past, is this a common teaching by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church?

Is this similar to the Parables of Jesus?

Thanks!!!
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

Here is a good explanation of this by Jimmy Akin. It is not saying it is all false, it affirms things that ahppened but in a stylized way:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/08/tough_bible_que.html
 
jmcrae said:
First, I would recommend the Ligouri system of RCIA, which is much more orthodox than whatever it is that you are getting.

I’d have thought that if these “non” orthodox teachings were heretical they would have been banned years ago. But every Church I’ve been to has used a RCIA format that assumes evolution, and understands the construction of Genesis.

Second, yes, we are required to believe that Adam and Eve were one man and one woman; polygenism (the idea that “Adam and Eve” stands for many people) is a heresy.

That’s not true from what I’ve read right here on the forum on evolution. Benedict has spoken to the issue. There is no requirement that there be a literal adam. We’ve been through this a zillion times now. 3 popes have signified their basic agreement with evolution as a model of how humans evolved. This of course does not in any way eliminate God as the force behind all of creation

As to the canon of Scripture, the canon of the New Testament was closed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I, and the Old Testament was closed in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, in April of 1546. Nothing may be added to, or subtracted from, the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, correct. Actually much of the canon was basically agreed upon much earlier, but formally it was set I believe by Trent.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I’d have thought that if these “non” orthodox teachings were heretical they would have been banned years ago. But every Church I’ve been to has used a RCIA format that assumes evolution, and understands the construction of Genesis.
Click to expand...
There doesn’t have to be a contradiction between evolutionary theory and the idea of one Adam and one Eve. In fact, it makes better sense that the specific random genetic mutation that resulted in human beings did not repeat itself, but only happened once.

The rest of the story of Adam and Eve can be allegorical without doing any damage to our theology - we don’t have to actually know what they did or what they said, as long as we understand that it was their sin (whatever sin it may have been) that brought Original Sin into the world.
 
Manphibian said:
In RCIA class last Wednesday they passed around some hand-outs, one of which claimed that, “For Catholics, technically, the Canon is still open. No books can be removed but more may be added. Such as books that weren’t declared heretical during the councils that determined the Canon of Scripture.” Is this correct?
Click to expand...
The Canon of Scripture is closed since the Council of Trent. There will be no new books added or taken away. PERIOD. Rome has spoken, and it is therefore CLOSED.
Also, another handout made the book of Genisis out to be one big myth. Saying that Adam and Eve may have only been 2 of many people created by God, and may not have even been real people, since “Adam” means “man”. The way I understood it, I thought it was dogma that Adam and Eve were our first parents and were real people. Am I Wrong?
Click to expand...
The Church has always believed that Adam and Eve are Real human beings and they are our first parents.
I understand that the 7 days may or may not be literal days, but this handout sounded dogmatic saying that Genisis was written “millions and millions of years after the earth was made”. Why are people so quick to agree with the conclusions of science, when science itself hasn’t concluded anything?
Click to expand...
7 Days may not be taken Literally. Peter himself said, a day for a God is like thousand days.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The Canon of Scripture is closed since the Council of Trent. There will be no new books added or taken away. PERIOD. Rome has spoken, and it is therefore CLOSED.
Click to expand...
Where does Trent say no new books will be added?
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Go look it up. 👍
Click to expand...
I tried to, history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html, but I don’t see it - unless we’re supposed to infer it from the statement that we accept all of the OT & NT to mean that the following list is that “all”, which is probably a fair interpretation and perhaps the correct one, but as I read it I see a strong definition that the listed books are canonical, that they are accepted by this council, and anathemas against anyone that tries to reduce the canon - but no such statements against anyone adding to the canon. Maybe it’s the translation I’m using, or maybe I’m looking at the wrong session. Little help? 🤷

BTW, I’m only talking about the OT canon, it’s pretty obvious that the NT has been a done deal for ages, but I don’t think the additional books of LXX are necessarily out of the picture in this light.
 
Athanasius said:
Jimmy Akin discussed this topic on his blog.
Click to expand...
He seems to share my sentiments, but seems to be speaking more about the potential of another apostolic work being discovered than the noncanonical books we know of now. Besides 3-4 Esdras and Manasses (which Clement went out of his way to at least keep attached to the canon, if not in it), were the Fathers at Trent familiar with 3-4 Maccabees, or Enoch & 4 Baruch?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top