The CC "got it right" on the NT canon? How do you know?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ah. So by “inspired” you simply mean “a true statement”.

When I use the term “inspired”, as it applies to this discussion, I mean theopneustos. “God breathed.”

There is only 1 source of theopneustos revelation, and that is Sacred Scripture.

Hi PRmerger;

I have a question to this board?

When a person reads sacred scripture in private, does that person read the scriptures as the Holy Spirit guides him/her, or does this person from a private reading, reads the scriptures from his/her formed conscience?

When the CC reads scripture in Liturgy, does she read and teach by divine revelation handed down, or by her own formed conscience?

Which one is Truth?

The formed conscience, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus Christ to be with us through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are subjects to consider that begs the answer to what is inspired and what is not inspired in the New Testament, that was canonized by the Whole Catholic Church in full communion and why a Sola Scriptura conscience maybe foreign to the idea of an Inspired biblical canon?

Just a thought

Peace be with you

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger;

I have a question to this board?

When a person reads sacred scripture in private, does that person read the scriptures as the Holy Spirit guides him/her, or does this person from a private reading, reads the scriptures from his/her formed conscience?

I don’t believe that each time a person reads the Bible in private the Holy Spirit is guiding her.

The Holy Spirit is not at our beck and call.

As Lucy says in CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia: “he is not a tame lion”.

Now, this isn’t to say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t sometimes (maybe often?) grace us as we read the Scriptures.

When the CC reads scripture in Liturgy, does she read and teach by divine revelation handed down, or by her own formed conscience?

Not sure what you mean here? Are you referring to the lector who reads at Mass, or the priest when he preaches his homily?

 

[rcwitness]

The subject of canon is really not that complicated; When one views the historical reasons of why the Canon= measuring standard and when it was applied.

After 400 years of persecution of the Catholic Church was lifted, the Church was able to council to settle the matter of the books to be used in each Apostolic Successor’s See that was being used in their Liturgies.

This is one of the main reasons why the books of the bible were canonized, to be used in Her Liturgy.

Each Ethnic group who were using their own books in Liturgy were considered already canonized by their own standards to be used in each one’s Liturgy. Are these authentic? Yes according to each one’s canon used in their Liturgy. Are they Universally canonized No.

But there is only one Universal Canon that all Catholics are to adhere to as the Canon of scripture, which the Church settled in council. Although many of the books came into question, the canon remained rock unchanged.

What proved a bible book as inspired? The canon consisted of proving the books authenticity by an apostolic author, and it had to be used in the Catholic Liturgy since apostolic times to the present. Pretty hard standards.

The Council of Trent never canonized the Deutero books. Trent only closed the existing canon so that the Deutero books are never to be questioned again period.

I believe it is the Orthodox who do not use the book of Revelations in their Liturgies, thus they may not recognize it as their canon in the Liturgy. But it never discounts or challenges the authenticity of the book of Revelations.

Liturgy simplifies each apostolic successors canon. Yet each Liturgy does not discount or challenge the universal canon of the Catholic Church.

Those Eastern Catholics (Apostolic Church’s) who fell into heresy or heterodoxy early on is another subject of liturgical biblical canons and questions??

Peace be with you

Good stuff Gabe.

Establishing (or as its post referred as fixing) the Canon of Scripture in the times just afte the persecution is important to realize. These early days made universal communication very difficult. And while we can all agree that during times of heavy persecution the Church grows in many ways through her member’s faithful suffering and devotion, during ‘free’ times there arises different (and internal) challenges throughout the Church Universal.

So while Scripture as declared by the Universal Church, is primarily done so for the sake of “being read in the Liturgy”, that shouldn’t be understood as being “only” read in Mass. Rather, that what is read in the Liturgy is the accepted divinely inspired Written Revelation of The old and new Covenant of God the Father of Jesus.

This Scripture can be read privately! Yet it’s “prophecy” is prohibited through Peter (and recorded within Scripture itself) to be understood and proclaimed in isolation from the brotherhood of the Church.

The Canon of Scripture is a great sign of Universality of the Church! The “coming together” of all of Scripture to “one book”, and being accepted as such, was done through Apostolic leadership. The Orthodox Church has such leadership and so is able to authoritatively Confirm her members in the faith. What the Catholic faith differs with the Orthodox is which Tradition is “greater”. Orthodox will always have her Traditions which are genuine as Catholic, yet when they are in “seeming” conflict with one another, we must accept one and set aside the other for the sake of greater unity or Communion.

 

[JonNC]

i think the real question is at the end of the day is there a qualitative difference between solo and sola scriptura. You agree with the CC where it suits you (based on your interpretation)but where your interpretation of Scripture does not agree with the CC you are the captain of your own ship determining that so and so got it right because you agree with their intpretation e.g. Luther vs CC. In the end it seem solo and sola really are the same at the end of the day…Im sure if Luther would have thrown out James like he did the Apoc this would be a different discussion…

The difference between solo and sola really has little to do with the CC. Someone who is sola, like Lutherans, will take into account the teachings of councils and the Fathers. Those who are solo typically will not.

Jon

 

[jlhargus]

The real answer for most of us is that the Bible just is. It’s been around now for 1600 years or so in its present form, and we accept it as such.

The real answer the Bible, just is accepted, is because its been handed down by Tradition as defined by the Church in the third century.

 

[rcwitness]

The difference between solo and sola really has little to do with the CC. Someone who is sola, like Lutherans, will take into account the teachings of councils and the Fathers. Those who are solo typically will not.

Jon

I hear ya Jon

And your description of all the Solas has always been very close to the orthodox faith we, as Catholics, accept!

It always boils down to what we accept as the prophetic meaning of Scripture and who ultimately has the binding authority to declare this Prophetic meaning and Tradition of Revelation (whether Scripture or claimed Oral Traditions).

Us Catholics should be always aware of the danger in following leadership apart from the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit!!!

Many Christians think following the Magisterial and the Holy Spirit are incompatible in principle. And I feel that some Catholics don’t convey the need for the Holy Spirit to guide us personally in our discernment of orthodox Teaching properly. So non-Catholic Christians think we mean to just blindly follow the Catholic leaders without discerning whether they are teaching “in communion” with Magisterial authority.

We all have an obligation to learn and grow. This means each must learn orthodox faith which, as you said, is led and/or Confirmed through councils and Fathers of the early Church.

One point I keep coming back to is that when certain Traditions come into conflict, there must be one which is accepted and one which is discarded, if unity is to be maintained. I, personally, will choose the one which the Bishop of Rome accepts. This is what I believe the Lord intended in giving Peter a distinguished place among the twelve.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

rcwitness;13109276]

So while Scripture as declared by the Universal Church, is primarily done so for the sake of “being read in the Liturgy”, that shouldn’t be understood as being “only” read in Mass. Rather, that what is read in the Liturgy is the accepted divinely inspired Written Revelation of The old and new Covenant of God the Father of Jesus.

Thank you rcwitness, your post clarifies and makes excellent points on this subject.
Something I take into consideration here, is that the common folk were mostly illiterate. Thus as scripture teaches, “Faith comes come by hearing and hearing” the Word of Jesus Christ. Thus it was through the Liturgy and the icons which proclaimed the Gospels of Jesus Christ.

It was only through the Liturgy by which the many receives “the accepted divinely inspired Written revelation” and apostolic practices taught orally from those it was given and handed down to for all ages.

Now that the world can read, the Church opens the Gospels and apostolic letters for any and all to read them. Yet, this freedom and liberty to read the bible outside of the Liturgy does not give license for all private readings to go out and start their own independent community and new belief system’s outside the confines of divine revelation handed down through Scripture, Sacred Tradition as lived and breathed through the Magisterium unchanged.

This Scripture can be read privately! Yet it’s “prophecy” is prohibited through Peter (and recorded within Scripture itself) to be understood and proclaimed in isolation from the brotherhood of the Church.

Understood. The Church maintains and does not add to divine revelation, as she states; “there are no more new divine revelations since the last Apostle of Jesus Christ”. This does not discount a Church councils teachings and findings that clarifies, develops a greater understanding to grow in faith of divine revelation to teach new languages, new cultural understanding. The Church councils to defend and clarify divine revelation in all ages. Prophecy is not left to one’s own interpretation outside Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, in this threefold we have the protection and guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

The Canon of Scripture is a great sign of Universality of the Church! The “coming together” of all of Scripture to “one book”, and being accepted as such, was done through Apostolic leadership. The Orthodox Church has such leadership and so is able to authoritatively Confirm her members in the faith. What the Catholic faith differs with the Orthodox is which Tradition is “greater”. Orthodox will always have her Traditions which are genuine as Catholic, yet when they are in “seeming” conflict with one another, we must accept one and set aside the other for the sake of greater unity or Communion.

Well said; Most conflicts deal with jurisdiction, authority, economics and social issues of the times. Sacred Apostolic Traditions generally never come into question. Much more can be said here. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox can add or subtract to divine revelation handed down, but She as one can defend and clarify divine revelation in every age that does not change.

Great post rcwitness:thumbsup:
peace be with you

 

[ericc]

The real answer the Bible, just is accepted, is because its been handed down by Tradition as defined by the Church in the third century.

I looked at it as some sort of evolution. Some books that were included earlier later were omitted and vice versa. Over time, whether though constant usage, popularity or redundancy, (no doubt with the HS behind all these processes) a tighter collection evolved. The pedigree of NT books by and large are tagged as apostolic, whether in fact or not they are actually written by the apostles or by their help. Perhaps the longevity of John the apostle helps to sanity check the contents for validity rather than authorship. None of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers made it into the canon.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t believe that each time a person reads the Bible in private the Holy Spirit is guiding her.

The Holy Spirit is not at our beck and call.

As Lucy says in CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia: “he is not a tame lion”.

Now, this isn’t to say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t sometimes (maybe often?) grace us as we read the Scriptures.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you referring to the lector who reads at Mass, or the priest when he preaches his homily?

Great answer, Grace cannot be confused with ones private reading of the bible as one being inspired as an apostle. This subject ties in here, but is a huge exchange.

The Homily in liturgy is what I was getting at comparing to a private reading.

 

[PRmerger]

The Homily in liturgy is what I was getting at comparing to a private reading.

Ah, I see.

No, when the priest is speaking and preaching his homily, he is not speaking as an inspired agent of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rcwitness]

Ah, I see.

No, when the priest is speaking and preaching his homily, he is not speaking as an inspired agent of the Holy Spirit.

I assume you mean “infallible so”, “or guaranteed to be”?

Because he certainly can be… and should hopefully doing his best to be.

 

[PRmerger]

I assume you mean “infallible so”, “or guaranteed to be”?

Because he certainly can be… and should hopefully doing his best to be.

Again, I am not using the word “inspired” to mean “true” or “extraordinary” (like, “his painting was inspiring” or “the poet’s words were inspiring”).

I mean a very strict definition: theopneustos. God breathed.

Only the Scriptures are inspired. That is, theopneustos.

A priest’s homily may be meaningful, truthful, imbued with grace, but it’s not theopneustos.

 

[rcwitness]

Again, I am not using the word “inspired” to mean “true” or “extraordinary” (like, “his painting was inspiring” or “the poet’s words were inspiring”).

I mean a very strict definition: theopneustos. God breathed.

Only the Scriptures are inspired. That is, theopneustos.

A priest’s homily may be meaningful, truthful, imbued with grace, but it’s not theopneustos.

Gotcha. I kinda thought that a minute after my post.

While I do agree with your distinction of the term “inspired” to define the uniqueness of Scripture, I guess I’m trying to recognize the ability for God to inspire the Godly man to speak by the Holy Spirit.

This may be more like speaking “prophetically” when, for example, a pastor relates a homily, trying to compelling his members, and says things which reach into individual souls as though they were known and being reached.

 

[clem456]

God’s breath is the revelation of a person, not a book. God did not breath forth a book. He breathed forth his Son in the virgin’s womb. So it is patently incorrect to say that only the Scriptures are theopneustos.

Without quoting a bunch of stuff from the catechism, this line says it all in a nutshell:

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up…

The Scriptures, the Tradition, the Magisterium, are inseparable in Jesus Christ and his Mystical Body. They all have their source in Jesus Christ, who is a divine person, not a book.
Christ is the word made flesh, who revealed himself in human nature, and passed on his gifts to other human persons. Christ really and substantially lived a human life, taught, died, and rose, really and substantially, in time. He gave his mission to other human persons.

Without obedience to Christ and his mystical body, we do not fully know Christ ( I include myself in my sinful ignorance.)

 

[rcwitness]

Back to the topic…

I believe that God used His holy Church to bring together His inspired Scriptures together and declare infallible that these very writings are to be held as Sacred Scripture.

This seems to be the crux of the thread, no?

That to believe in the Bible as what we profess it to be, namely inerrant and divinely inspired and containing the new covenant Gospel revelation in writing, we must believe in an infallible Church authority to Confirm it to be so (including its index).

 

[clem456]

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

How can the traditions of men (persons) be part of the same divine wellspring?
Because Christ is a divine person who loved us so much that he became one of us, and gave us his gifts.
Remember?..they killed him and he was gone from us. Then he rose in victory from the dead and sent us forth to proclaim it. He ascended to his Father and promised to be with us to the end of the age. He handed the ball off to other human beings. (by the way, it is theorized that this human element caused Lucifer all kinds of problems).

Don’t you think, that if he didn’t want human persons to have authority, he would have just stayed here and sat on a throne forever??? Is our God stupid and unable to solve problems?
He could have settled all scripture interpretation problems and all squabbles himself, for all time, by just hanging around.
But no, he doesn’t want us to be slaves. He had to go and love us so much that he invited us to submit to one another and trust one another, so as to be united with each other, through him, with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

Sola Scriptura is just absurd.

 

[rcwitness]

I suppose Sola Scriptura would say that the Church “merely submitted to the authority of the Scriptures” when determining a canon of Scripture.

Fair enough, in a sense.

But still, Sola Scriptura would have to have been declared by the Church, and even within Scripture. But that is lacking. And if it were there, it would still have to be an infallible decree, right?

 

[clem456]

I suppose Sola Scriptura would say that the Church “merely submitted to the authority of the Scriptures” when determining a canon of Scripture.

Fair enough, in a sense.

But still, Sola Scriptura would have to have been declared by the Church, and even within Scripture. But that is lacking. And if it were there, it would still have to be an infallible decree, right?

If the Church merely submitted to the authority of the book then Joseph Smith is right. Who can dispute him? He has a book just like we do. What he does not have is Jesus Christ.

Infallibility is not created by the Church, it is a gift shared with us by Christ for the benefit of all. It is a participation in him.
Infallibility is a charism.

 

[Protestor]

Would you please explain it to me, as if we’d never had this discussion? You believe that Hebrews is inspired because? And that 1 Clement is not inspired because? Sources of revelation? So, for example, if someone says that God’s revelation says that God hates homosexuals, you judge this to be true or false based on what?

I will not explain like we have never talked because it makes it harder to refute what I am saying

Short answerFor short answer long give me a few days to pull some resources it has been a while since I studied this)
History(mostly for gospels), tradition, private revelation(James, Revelation). I don’t know that 1 Clement is not. I sadly still haven’t read the whole thing. I would say the only source is God, but there are different types. I would say “where and what revelation are you talking about?”. I have actually heard this as a part of a sermon on how God loves the sinner hates the sin is either wrong or not the whole story based upon a David Platt sermon. My brain cannot make sense of how God can love and hate everyone or anyone at the same time(however God is effected by time I do not know) and in the same way. So for me I would say so far this belief is false. Based on reason.

 

[PRmerger]

I will not explain like we have never talked because it makes it harder to refute what I am saying

Short answerFor short answer long give me a few days to pull some resources it has been a while since I studied this)
History(mostly for gospels), tradition, private revelation(James, Revelation). I don’t know that 1 Clement is not. I sadly still haven’t read the whole thing. I would say the only source is God, but there are different types. I would say “where and what revelation are you talking about?”. I have actually heard this as a part of a sermon on how God loves the sinner hates the sin is either wrong or not the whole story based upon a David Platt sermon. My brain cannot make sense of how God can love and hate everyone or anyone at the same time(however God is effected by time I do not know) and in the same way. So for me I would say so far this belief is false. Based on reason.

Thank you for addressing my question.

I will indeed give you time to pull some resources.

But your above response prompts this:

1. you have never stated any of the above to me before.
2. You state that history is one of your sources for determining that Hebrews is inspired.

Well, that’s simply another way of saying, “I defer to the Church telling me in history that Hebrews is inspired.”

1. You note that you don’t know that 1 Clement isn’t theopneustos as you haven’t read it. Are you saying that you 'd be able to tell, by reading, if it’s theopneustos? If so, how would you tell? If it had things in it which weren’t true?

But how does that work? Isn’t the paradigm “It’s inspired, so therefore I believe it!” So if it has things in it that you’ve never heard before…but it’s inspired, then you’d have to believe it, right?