The Canon of Scripture: particular verses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron-

is it of no concern to you, as a professing Catholic, that your assertions of the validity of your interpretations of council documents (here and in other threads), over and against the statements and practice of later popes and councils, is essentially the Protestant position of sola scriptura, except further demoted to the extent that council documents are not and have never been asserted to be the inspired Word of God?

As Catholics we posit that when our personal interpretation contradicts that of the Church, we choose to accept the teaching of the Church as having the authority of Christ, and thus presume that the Church is correct and we are mistaken. How is it that you cannot extend this act of faith to the later reinterpretation/application of council documents by the Magesterium?
 
NHInsider said:
Ron-

is it of no concern to you, as a professing Catholic, that your assertions of the validity of your interpretations of council documents (here and in other threads), over and against the statements and practice of later popes and councils, is essentially the Protestant position of sola scriptura, except further demoted to the extent that council documents are not and have never been asserted to be the inspired Word of God?

As Catholics we posit that when our personal interpretation contradicts that of the Church, we choose to accept the teaching of the Church as having the authority of Christ, and thus presume that the Church is correct and we are mistaken. How is it that you cannot extend this act of faith to the later reinterpretation/application of council documents by the Magesterium?
Click to expand...
You make good points.

I would STRONGLY suggest that you research Mr. Conte’s claims and see if, in fact, he is the “theologian” he claims to be.
 
Ron_Conte said:
And once we admit that verses and phrases can be dropped from the Canon by the majority opinion of scholars, the erosion of Sacred Scripture will have no end at all.
Click to expand...
We (Catholics) don’t admit that. The Church (Magisterium) would be involved with approving any translations that might omit verses. If the Church approves it, ok. If not, that might be a problem.
 
Ron is seems that most of your complaints or criticisms are more along the lines that
the Church tends to lend more weight to a more modernistic POV when it comes to scriptural interpretations & applications while failing to expound upon the rich history & teachings of the whole ( viewed in a time line way) magisterium.

New interpretations are possible as new sources come to light. However, nowhere is there an original of any of the NT books & some of the OT has a varied past as different tribes subscribed to variations of OT Books. Until it was finally necessary & incumbent upon our Jewish brethren to form their own Canon.

As one who readily admits to the superior scriptural education of many if not most in here. I too strive to do & be my best & as pointed out be others It is my responsibility to conform myself to the teachings of the Church & not the other way around. It has been hard and I imagine it will continue to be.

Thank all of you for sharing your learned insights with the rest of us.

Yours in Christ.
 
The Second Vatican Council also taught this same teaching, that Sacred Scripture is inspired in all its parts:

“For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that** the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical** because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

The interpretation suggested in some posts above, that ‘all their parts’ refers solely to the deuterocanonical books and parts is refuted by the Second Vatican Council, when it says ‘of both the Old and New Testaments’. There is no deuterocanonical material in the NT. Therefore, Vatican II interpreted Trent as referring to the whole Bible, when Trent said that the sacred canon includes all the books with all their parts.

But many Catholics will set aside a definitive teaching of the Magisterium if there is a common or a majority opinion to the contrary.

So again, based on the teaching of the Council of Trent, and also on the interpretation of the words of the Council of Trent by the Second Vatican Council, I assert that all of the verses and parts of verses in Sacred Scripture, as found in the old Latin Vulgate, are part of the sacred canon of the Bible, and cannot be dropped from the text on the basis of any scholarly considerations whatsoever.
 
Ron Conte: Just curious: which versions of the Latin Vulgate included the Johannine Comma and which ones did not?

If we could go back in time and ask everyone who attended the Council of Trent if the Johannine Comma was really part of the Canon or not–what would they say?
 
Fortunately, Mr. Conte’s opinions are neither inspired, infallible, nor magisterial! (Nor scholarly!)

Might I ask if he has the permission of his Bishop or his Diocese to claim publicly a role as a “Roman Catholic theologian”?

So far, he has refused to respond to me!

Oh well!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Ron Conte: Just curious: which versions of the Latin Vulgate included the Johannine Comma and which ones did not?

If we could go back in time and ask everyone who attended the Council of Trent if the Johannine Comma was really part of the Canon or not–what would they say?
Click to expand...
The 1590, 1592, 1593, 1598, Sixtus V and Clement VIII editions all have it, as do the 1861 Vercellone and the 1914 Hetzenauer. The Neo-Vulgate drops it.

We don’t have to go back in time and ask the Council of Trent, since they taught definitively on the issue, all the books of the Latin Vulgate with all their parts are inspired, sacred, and canonical. Vatican II reiterated this, as I state in my post above, adding the words ‘in their entirety’.

Also, the solemn definition on doctrine of a Council is of the Holy Spirit, so the question of what the members would say if they were asked a question does not really matter. Theoretically, you could have a Council in which most members had the incorrect understanding of a doctrine that they were considering, but by the time that the solemn definition is issued, it will have no errors due to the action of the Spirit.

Vatican I also issued a similar decree: “The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.” The Council then went on to say that the text is inspired and without error.

So there are three Councils definitively teaching “all their parts” and “in their entirety” and “the complete books of the old and new testament”.

There are a number of problems with ‘interpreting’ these decrees as permitting verses and parts of verses to be dropped:
  1. dropping verses, or any significant part of a verse, implies that the Canon is open; and if the Canon is open, then verses could also be added. What if some new manuscripts are found, and the text has some additional phrases here and there, or an additional verse or two. Can scholars add verses to the Bible?
  2. the temporal authority of the Church approves of Bible translations; but the infallible Magisterium of three Councils has taught that the Canon is closed; it consists of the books and parts of books named by Trent and found in the old Latin Vulgate. If we accept that verses can be dropped because some Bible versions, which dropped verses, have the approval of the temporal authority, then we are saying, in effect that the temporal authority can nullify or overrule the infallible teaching authority.
  3. If we feel free to ignore or interpret away such a definitive teaching as the extent of the Canon of Scripture, then every teaching of the Church that has been taught less definitively is also subject to the same treatment. Why can we ignore this definitive teaching and not other less definitive teachings? If we may cast aside a teaching on the Canon, why not all lesser teachings?
  4. The main reason that people are arguing that verses can be dropped is that this is the majority opinion of scholars. But the idea that the majority opinion should prevail over the definitive teaching of the Magisterium is a heresy (Americanism).
Although I started at the beginning of this thread saying that this was my understanding of what the Council of Trent taught (on the scope of the Canon), after further reading and thought, I’m now convinced that this is an infallible teaching.
 
Mr. Conte,

Care to respond to ANY of my posts?

Checked with your bishop or diocese lately?

No offense intended – but I AM offended by your illegitimate claims!
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Second Vatican Council also taught this same teaching, that Sacred Scripture is inspired in all its parts:

“For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that** the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical** because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

The interpretation suggested in some posts above, that ‘all their parts’ refers solely to the deuterocanonical books and parts is refuted by the Second Vatican Council, when it says ‘of both the Old and New Testaments’. There is no deuterocanonical material in the NT. Therefore, Vatican II interpreted Trent as referring to the whole Bible, when Trent said that the sacred canon includes all the books with all their parts.

But many Catholics will set aside a definitive teaching of the Magisterium if there is a common or a majority opinion to the contrary.

So again, based on the teaching of the Council of Trent, and also on the interpretation of the words of the Council of Trent by the Second Vatican Council, I assert that all of the verses and parts of verses in Sacred Scripture, as found in the old Latin Vulgate, are part of the sacred canon of the Bible, and cannot be dropped from the text on the basis of any scholarly considerations whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Surely Ron, you know that there are “deuterocanonical” books of the New Testament, even if they were not identified by that term. While the Protestants did not throw any books out, Luther didn’t like certain books and Lutherans eventually changed the order of some of the books. The Fathers of Vatican II would probably be familiar with biblical scholarship that rejected parts of the gospels (e.g. the woman caught in adultery in John and the Longer Ending to Mark) as authentic.

I note that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council decided to retain the language of Trent, rather than clarify it to mention verses, i.e. the Council Fathers did not intend to extend the teaching beyond what Trent, and the Magisterium, had asserted. My opinion is that Trent, as well as Vatican II, would hold that it is wrong to throw out parts (as in closer to “chunks”) of the accepted Vulgate text (e.g the pericopes mentioned in the earlier paragraph). In neither the texts of the Councils, nor the subsequent teachings of the Magisterium, can the idea that each and every verse in the Vulgate text is canonical be found.

In any case, the Council Fathers are (probably) familiar with the Comma Johanneum controversy, with the Apostolic See initially being cautious about dropping it and subsequently declaring that it was open to dispute. The Magisterium of the Church recognised that it could be disputed. In the Nova Vulgata promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, the Comma was dropped from the text officially. This demonstrates that the Magisterium of the Church does not share your interpretation. Doesn’t mean that you can’t hold it, just that it is not the teaching of the Church, and you shouldn’t present it as such and confuse others.

While the Church is not a democracy, the Holy Spirit does work through the sense of the faithful. Where the sense of the faithful is in agreement with the Magisterial teachings, I would be cautious to denigrate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top