D
davidv
Guest
Other than Church council decisions, what milestones would be present in order for one to declare that the cannon was closed?
- Status
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Canon is closed when all the books in the Canon are completed. The decision on the contents of the Canon is not what closes the Canon. Scripture is Divine Revelation, so it is closed when that Revelation is complete.
S
simspt
Guest
B]its one thing to claim that these documents were authoritative and inspired and quite another to claim that the early Church Fathers viewed them as part of closed canon.
D
davidv
Guest
See bolded. How was this definition derived?
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
Basically they waited until they had a few different acounts of Jesus’s life, and sort of what his apostles did after that in Acts. Then they waited for a guy named Paul and a few other guys to write essays and letters to “supplement” the Gospels and fill in the blanks with questions regrading issues Jesus does not explicitly address in the Gospels. Then they waited until someone came out with a cool vague metaphorical poetic prophetic/book that was written in code regarding events of their time… AKA Revelation.
Then they threw out all the halfassed Gnostic gospels and VUALA, YOU’VE GOT THE CURRENT NEW TESTAMANT CANON.
The bigger question is, when did the canon of scripture START?
Then they threw out all the halfassed Gnostic gospels and VUALA, YOU’VE GOT THE CURRENT NEW TESTAMANT CANON.
The bigger question is, when did the canon of scripture START?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Mr. Conte,
First, I respectfully submit that it would take an entirely new council (such as Trent??) to even SORT THROUGH the “mess” that occurred following the calling of a council by Pope Martin V.
A. Which council, originally called for by Martin V, should we recognize: Constance, Siena, and then finally Basel? Even our own historians have a problem explaining the reasons why each city just named should be given to each body meeting in that city, or whether all three should be called Basel, as it was the third in a series of councils that had been moved, for reasons some still legitimately point out as “obscure”.
B. Before moving yet again, Basel, attended by religious numbering more abbots and priests than bishops, issued two very important decrees. One stated that Councils were greater than Popes (something that certainly could NOT be taken as infallible, as Vatican I clearly stated something contrary), and another stated that future Popes had to take a prescribed oath.
C. Those meeting in Basel were driven out of Basel by force and then convened in Lausanne, Switzerland. Yet, some bishops remained in Basel and elected “Pope Amadeus VIII”, now considered an antipope.
D. Those who met at Lausanne considered themselves to be still meeting under the Council that had been called in Basel, which was now meeting in Lausanne. In Lausanne, they elected Felix V, the claimant to the papal throne who ever took the oath that they had prescribed. Felix V later resigned. Finally, those in Lausanne, although still meeting at what they considered to be the Council of Basel, closed the Council of Basel, then meeting in Lausanne.
E. Fleeing Basel, some (as mentioned above) fled to Lausanne, and some fled to Ferrara. Even historians disagree as to which body was the “true” continuation of the original Council of Basel - those meeting in Lausanne (who thought they were still Basel’s council) or those who fled to Ferra?
Although Lateran V, convened by Julius II, was a recognized council, it dealt with several issues that were unrelated to those issues raised at the maze of “councils” meeting in Constance, Siena, Basel, Lausanne, Ferrara and finally, Florence.
The Council of Trent was finally recognized by all of those faithful to Rome and was the last council called until Vatican I in the late 1800’s, over 300 years since Trent.
Second, Mr. Conte, I do not wish to argue semantics. You seem to say that revelation (divine inspiration - NOT the Book of the bible) ended when the last book of the NT was finished. Yes, in a matter of speaking, and AS I CLEARLY SAID BEFORE IN A PREVIOUS POST: THE LAST-WRITTEN BOOK OF THE NT THAT WAS DECREED AS A CANONICAL PART OF THE NT, would indicate the closing of NT canon.
Yet, the man writing the last-written book of the NT COULD NOT POSSIBLY KNOW THAT HE WAS WRITING THE LAST BOOK THAT WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AT PART OF THE NT CANON (unless revealed to him by God, and we have no indication that such was revealed to him).
cont’d in next post
First, I respectfully submit that it would take an entirely new council (such as Trent??) to even SORT THROUGH the “mess” that occurred following the calling of a council by Pope Martin V.
- The first council he called was NOT at Trent - it was at Basel Switzerland. In addition, the Pope was not even present - he sent a “legate” in his place. Finally, Martin V could NOT have attended Basel for one very good reason: he was now dead. The fact of the pope’s death was “similar” (NOT the same, but similar) as Vatican II. With Vatican II, John XXIII called the council, but died during its tenure, and was continued and concluded by Paul VI. The DIFFERENCE I refer to is that John XXIII at least attended the council he had called. Basel was never attended by the pope who called it.
A. Which council, originally called for by Martin V, should we recognize: Constance, Siena, and then finally Basel? Even our own historians have a problem explaining the reasons why each city just named should be given to each body meeting in that city, or whether all three should be called Basel, as it was the third in a series of councils that had been moved, for reasons some still legitimately point out as “obscure”.
B. Before moving yet again, Basel, attended by religious numbering more abbots and priests than bishops, issued two very important decrees. One stated that Councils were greater than Popes (something that certainly could NOT be taken as infallible, as Vatican I clearly stated something contrary), and another stated that future Popes had to take a prescribed oath.
C. Those meeting in Basel were driven out of Basel by force and then convened in Lausanne, Switzerland. Yet, some bishops remained in Basel and elected “Pope Amadeus VIII”, now considered an antipope.
D. Those who met at Lausanne considered themselves to be still meeting under the Council that had been called in Basel, which was now meeting in Lausanne. In Lausanne, they elected Felix V, the claimant to the papal throne who ever took the oath that they had prescribed. Felix V later resigned. Finally, those in Lausanne, although still meeting at what they considered to be the Council of Basel, closed the Council of Basel, then meeting in Lausanne.
E. Fleeing Basel, some (as mentioned above) fled to Lausanne, and some fled to Ferrara. Even historians disagree as to which body was the “true” continuation of the original Council of Basel - those meeting in Lausanne (who thought they were still Basel’s council) or those who fled to Ferra?
- Those who fled from Ferrara moved within just one year to Florence. The move from Ferrara to Florence was apparently caused by two “non religious” reasons: plague and the promise of the City of Florence to continue funding what had been the meeting at Ferrara.
- Those meeting in Florence seemed to reunited the Orthodox Church with Rome, when those attending Florence agreed on papal supremacy, purgatory, and the filioque clause in the creed.
- Unfortunately, the Orthodox Church’s representatives at Florence returned to their people and were rejected. Thus, the schism between East and West remained.
Although Lateran V, convened by Julius II, was a recognized council, it dealt with several issues that were unrelated to those issues raised at the maze of “councils” meeting in Constance, Siena, Basel, Lausanne, Ferrara and finally, Florence.
The Council of Trent was finally recognized by all of those faithful to Rome and was the last council called until Vatican I in the late 1800’s, over 300 years since Trent.
Second, Mr. Conte, I do not wish to argue semantics. You seem to say that revelation (divine inspiration - NOT the Book of the bible) ended when the last book of the NT was finished. Yes, in a matter of speaking, and AS I CLEARLY SAID BEFORE IN A PREVIOUS POST: THE LAST-WRITTEN BOOK OF THE NT THAT WAS DECREED AS A CANONICAL PART OF THE NT, would indicate the closing of NT canon.
Yet, the man writing the last-written book of the NT COULD NOT POSSIBLY KNOW THAT HE WAS WRITING THE LAST BOOK THAT WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AT PART OF THE NT CANON (unless revealed to him by God, and we have no indication that such was revealed to him).
cont’d in next post
S
Salvatore123
Guest
In conclusion,
I. I am not about to even BEGIN to wade through the morass of councils, popes, anti-popes, and papal oaths. Although I consider myself pretty good (and I say this with utmost humility) at deciphering complicated contracts and statutes, the councils between Constance and Florence actually gave me a headache - literally.
II. I still maintain, give the above “uncertainties”, that Trent, once and for all, pronounced the ENTIRE canon of the Bible - OT and NT. Trent has ALWAYS been recognized by those faithful to Rome. It was not until Vatican I that another council led to, yet again, a split amongst Rome’s faithful - namely, those who left calling themselves “old Catholics” and those accepting Vatican I’s decrees. Although some of the “old Catholics” have since come to accept Vatican I and were accepted by the Vatican after a lifting of excommunication for those wishing to return, we still have elements of Catholics who accepted Trent but disagreed with Vatican I.
III. We then have an entirely new group of those who rejected Vatican II, and I am not about to discuss sedevacantism. That is being addressed by the current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. And I sincerely pray that the Society of St. Piux X, as well as the “old Catholics” will realize what many “high Anglicans” are realizing: those that disagree with duly constituted councils in Rome, have separated themselves from God’s true church.
In sum: although a legitimate council (perhaps Florence, perhaps not) stated what the canon of the OT and NT was in an infallible decree, I still respectfully submit that it was not until Trent that the TRUE Catholic Church gave credence and stability to an official set of pronouncements from the Catholic Church in Rome.
I think I am safe in saying that Trent was the first council that was given widespread acceptance by overwhelming numbers of Catholics around the world. I am NOT saying that such deference or acceptance is necessary to consider a Council as legitimate. I am simply saying that Trent issued numerous decrees that was universally accepted by those still calling themselves followers of the Holy Catholic Church, both Roman and Eastern Rite churches.
Remember: Trent began AFTER the beginning of the Protestant Revolt.
I do not even like to characterize what happened in the 1500’s as a “reformation”; I consider it to have been an outright revolt of Catholic teaching by several disgruntled Catholics/turned heretics who simply did not like what they apparently thought was a sudden enlightenment by God).
Man - I have another headache
I. I am not about to even BEGIN to wade through the morass of councils, popes, anti-popes, and papal oaths. Although I consider myself pretty good (and I say this with utmost humility) at deciphering complicated contracts and statutes, the councils between Constance and Florence actually gave me a headache - literally.
II. I still maintain, give the above “uncertainties”, that Trent, once and for all, pronounced the ENTIRE canon of the Bible - OT and NT. Trent has ALWAYS been recognized by those faithful to Rome. It was not until Vatican I that another council led to, yet again, a split amongst Rome’s faithful - namely, those who left calling themselves “old Catholics” and those accepting Vatican I’s decrees. Although some of the “old Catholics” have since come to accept Vatican I and were accepted by the Vatican after a lifting of excommunication for those wishing to return, we still have elements of Catholics who accepted Trent but disagreed with Vatican I.
III. We then have an entirely new group of those who rejected Vatican II, and I am not about to discuss sedevacantism. That is being addressed by the current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. And I sincerely pray that the Society of St. Piux X, as well as the “old Catholics” will realize what many “high Anglicans” are realizing: those that disagree with duly constituted councils in Rome, have separated themselves from God’s true church.
In sum: although a legitimate council (perhaps Florence, perhaps not) stated what the canon of the OT and NT was in an infallible decree, I still respectfully submit that it was not until Trent that the TRUE Catholic Church gave credence and stability to an official set of pronouncements from the Catholic Church in Rome.
I think I am safe in saying that Trent was the first council that was given widespread acceptance by overwhelming numbers of Catholics around the world. I am NOT saying that such deference or acceptance is necessary to consider a Council as legitimate. I am simply saying that Trent issued numerous decrees that was universally accepted by those still calling themselves followers of the Holy Catholic Church, both Roman and Eastern Rite churches.
Remember: Trent began AFTER the beginning of the Protestant Revolt.
I do not even like to characterize what happened in the 1500’s as a “reformation”; I consider it to have been an outright revolt of Catholic teaching by several disgruntled Catholics/turned heretics who simply did not like what they apparently thought was a sudden enlightenment by God).
Man - I have another headache
S
Salvatore123
Guest
SnakeMauler,
In answer to your query about when did the Canon of Scripture begin:
I think the answer is: when the first authors began writing what came to be accepted as Genesis.
For YEARS, the Pentateuch (first five books of the bible) was considered written by Moses. Modern scholarship has begun to question that conclusion, expecially with regard to Genesis.
After all, we have two entirely different accounts/styles regarding God’s creation of everything. In one, we have man preceding all other things on earth, and in another, we have man following all things on earth. They cannot both be correct. Either the animals followed man or they didn’t - it is that simple.
To me, the key has ALWAYS been, not “what happened” from a scientific standpoint. the key has been that God was the creator of everything. How he did it is, I respectfully submit, a scientific evaluation that really need not discard God as the creator of all things, most importantly, the creation of a human soul. WHEN God chose to impart a soul on the first man is irrelevant to me - I simply choose to believe that God did so.
David,
In answer to your query: “How was this definition derived?”, when referring to “The Canon is closed when all the books in the Canon are completed”,
I believe it is one of those “chicken or the egg” questions. The Canon was closed when the last-written ACCEPTED canon of scripture was written. But, no one (except God) KNEW when the last-written book would be considered as part of the Bible UNTIL the Vatican infallibly declared a particular list of books AS the canon of the Bible.
Again - it is a matter of how one asks the question.
Did the closing of the canon (if you mean by that, the end of divine revelation) occur before the Church infallibly declare a particular list of books as the canon of scripture, then the answer is yes.
If you ask if when the closing of the canon was RECOGNIZED as having occurred, then that occurred much later than when the last-written book occurred.
In answer to your query about when did the Canon of Scripture begin:
I think the answer is: when the first authors began writing what came to be accepted as Genesis.
For YEARS, the Pentateuch (first five books of the bible) was considered written by Moses. Modern scholarship has begun to question that conclusion, expecially with regard to Genesis.
After all, we have two entirely different accounts/styles regarding God’s creation of everything. In one, we have man preceding all other things on earth, and in another, we have man following all things on earth. They cannot both be correct. Either the animals followed man or they didn’t - it is that simple.
To me, the key has ALWAYS been, not “what happened” from a scientific standpoint. the key has been that God was the creator of everything. How he did it is, I respectfully submit, a scientific evaluation that really need not discard God as the creator of all things, most importantly, the creation of a human soul. WHEN God chose to impart a soul on the first man is irrelevant to me - I simply choose to believe that God did so.
David,
In answer to your query: “How was this definition derived?”, when referring to “The Canon is closed when all the books in the Canon are completed”,
I believe it is one of those “chicken or the egg” questions. The Canon was closed when the last-written ACCEPTED canon of scripture was written. But, no one (except God) KNEW when the last-written book would be considered as part of the Bible UNTIL the Vatican infallibly declared a particular list of books AS the canon of the Bible.
Again - it is a matter of how one asks the question.
Did the closing of the canon (if you mean by that, the end of divine revelation) occur before the Church infallibly declare a particular list of books as the canon of scripture, then the answer is yes.
If you ask if when the closing of the canon was RECOGNIZED as having occurred, then that occurred much later than when the last-written book occurred.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
As far as what did the authors of the sacred scriptures think about their particular books they authored, I do not believe any decree has ever stated that the authors of the canon of books accepted as the Bible KNEW they were writing sacred scripture.
I always cite Tertullian as an example. If not for his Monatanist heresy, Tertullian may have very well be considered for sainthood. Before his heresy, he was an excellent churchman, having been recognized as the first person to use the word “trinity” when referring to the nature of God, Jesus, and the Paraclete.
Just think: the person who first coins the word “trinity” in describing one our basis tenets of faith, was a person who also became a heretic.
Pretty ironic . . .
I always cite Tertullian as an example. If not for his Monatanist heresy, Tertullian may have very well be considered for sainthood. Before his heresy, he was an excellent churchman, having been recognized as the first person to use the word “trinity” when referring to the nature of God, Jesus, and the Paraclete.
Just think: the person who first coins the word “trinity” in describing one our basis tenets of faith, was a person who also became a heretic.
Pretty ironic . . .
L
lon
Guest
I’m not sure that the Church has infallibly declared that the canon of Scripture is closed - my reading of the infallible declaration of the Council of Trent is that it only stated the minimum canon that must be adhered to. While I think that it’s very unlikely that any more books (e.g., Third Book of Maccabees, or Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans) will be declared to be inspired, I don’t see anything that would prohibit their future inclusion (other than long-standing tradition, of course).
As other posters have pointed out, the Church teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, not that all revelation is included in the Scriptures written before the death of the Apostles. St. Luke was not an Apostle, but he accurately recorded Apostolic teaching.
Lon
As other posters have pointed out, the Church teaches that public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, not that all revelation is included in the Scriptures written before the death of the Apostles. St. Luke was not an Apostle, but he accurately recorded Apostolic teaching.
Lon
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Again, it all depends on interpretation of what was written. The following is a verbatum transcript of Trent on this exact issue:
The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed. This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand. Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it 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; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. 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.[4] They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. 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. Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.
cont’d
The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed. This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand. Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it 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; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession. 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.[4] They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. 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. Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.
cont’d
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.
And wishing, as is proper, to impose a restraint in this matter on printers also, who, now without restraint, thinking what pleases them is permitted them, print without the permission of ecclesiastical superiors the books of the Holy Scriptures and the notes and commentaries thereon of all persons indiscriminately, often with the name of the press omitted, often also under a fictitious press-name, and what is worse, without the name of the author, and also indiscreetly have for sale such books printed elsewhere, [this council] decrees and ordains that in the future the Holy Scriptures, especially the old Vulgate Edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible, and that it shall not be lawful for anyone to print or to have printed any books whatsoever dealing with sacred doctrinal mattes without the name of the author, or in the future to sell them, or even to have them in possession, unless they have first been examined and approved by the ordinary, under penalty of anathema and fine prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran.[7] If they be regulars they must in addition to this examination and approval obtain permission also from their own superiors after these have examined the books in accordance with their own statutes. Those who lend or circulate them in manuscript before they have been examined and approved, shall be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who have them in their possession or read them, shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. The approbation of such books, however, shall be given in writing and shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether it be written or printed, and all this, that is, both the examination and the approbation, shall be done gratuitously, so that what ought to be approved may be approved and what ought to be condemned may be condemned.
Furthermore, wishing to repress that boldness whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt, and that no one may in the future dare use in any manner the words of Holy Scripture for these and similar purposes, it is commanded and enjoined that all people of this kind be restrained by the bishops as violators and profaners of the word of God, with the penalties of the law and other penalties that they may deem fit to impose.
Announcement of the Next Session:
Likewise, this holy council ordains and decrees that the next session will be held and celebrated on the Thursday after the next most sacred feast of Pentecost.
cont’d
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.
And wishing, as is proper, to impose a restraint in this matter on printers also, who, now without restraint, thinking what pleases them is permitted them, print without the permission of ecclesiastical superiors the books of the Holy Scriptures and the notes and commentaries thereon of all persons indiscriminately, often with the name of the press omitted, often also under a fictitious press-name, and what is worse, without the name of the author, and also indiscreetly have for sale such books printed elsewhere, [this council] decrees and ordains that in the future the Holy Scriptures, especially the old Vulgate Edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible, and that it shall not be lawful for anyone to print or to have printed any books whatsoever dealing with sacred doctrinal mattes without the name of the author, or in the future to sell them, or even to have them in possession, unless they have first been examined and approved by the ordinary, under penalty of anathema and fine prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran.[7] If they be regulars they must in addition to this examination and approval obtain permission also from their own superiors after these have examined the books in accordance with their own statutes. Those who lend or circulate them in manuscript before they have been examined and approved, shall be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who have them in their possession or read them, shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. The approbation of such books, however, shall be given in writing and shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether it be written or printed, and all this, that is, both the examination and the approbation, shall be done gratuitously, so that what ought to be approved may be approved and what ought to be condemned may be condemned.
Furthermore, wishing to repress that boldness whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt, and that no one may in the future dare use in any manner the words of Holy Scripture for these and similar purposes, it is commanded and enjoined that all people of this kind be restrained by the bishops as violators and profaners of the word of God, with the penalties of the law and other penalties that they may deem fit to impose.
Announcement of the Next Session:
Likewise, this holy council ordains and decrees that the next session will be held and celebrated on the Thursday after the next most sacred feast of Pentecost.
cont’d
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Strictly as an attorney reviewing a statute or a contract, I point to the following as “evidence” that the OT and NT that the Church recognizes today as being “final” regarding Holy Spirit-inspired canonical books:
By using the qualifier “all”, that SEEMS to suggest that no others exist. I conclude this by a common rule of intepretation of what linguists call an “absolute” word. That is, one that needs no further qualification or explanation as to what is meant.
“All” means just that - all; no others.
Another example is the word “stop”. Many people say, incorrectly, a “rolling stop”; there is no such thing. One is either stopped, that is, no movement, or one is not. One cannot be both.
The Council refers to ONE list of the “sacred books”, and then goes on to list those books. It makes no mention of any other books that may be forthcoming. And it says it makes this list “lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books”. Again, this seems to be pretty definitive.
cont’d
- The first language I look to is:
By using the qualifier “all”, that SEEMS to suggest that no others exist. I conclude this by a common rule of intepretation of what linguists call an “absolute” word. That is, one that needs no further qualification or explanation as to what is meant.
“All” means just that - all; no others.
Another example is the word “stop”. Many people say, incorrectly, a “rolling stop”; there is no such thing. One is either stopped, that is, no movement, or one is not. One cannot be both.
- Next, I look to:
The Council refers to ONE list of the “sacred books”, and then goes on to list those books. It makes no mention of any other books that may be forthcoming. And it says it makes this list “lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books”. Again, this seems to be pretty definitive.
cont’d
S
Salvatore123
Guest
- Next, I look to the following:
One can interpret the above in one of two ways:
A. The old Latin Vulgate (referring to the St. Jerome translation) contains ALL canonical books, and no more.
or
B. The LANGUAGE/WORDING of the books IN the old Latin Vulgate, are the only translations of those books that are accepted as valid.
If one goes with the B interpretation (but keep in mind Nos. 1 and 2 I cited before this one, No. 3), then the above wording is not talking about the listing - it is talking about the wording of the books in the old Latin Vulgate.
- Finally, I look to:
I interpret the above as saying that the old Latin Vulgate is authentic. I also interpret the above as saying the old Latin Vulgate is ALSO COMPLETE, as adding more books to the old Latin Vulgate would, at least to me, be rejecting the old Latin Vulgate.
One cannot legitimately say that one accepts the old Latin Vulgate as being THE Word of God, which has just been decreed to be infallible, and in which the Council just a few sentences before, specifically listed all of the books that the faithful are to accept as the canon of the Bible, and yet hold a position that “the canon is not necessarily closed”.
Caveat: I mentioned this earlier: the Vatican now has what they refer to as the Nova Vulgata, a “New Vulgate”, that was promulated in 1979/1986. As one will see some changes when one contrasts the “old Latin Vulgate” and the “New Vulgate”, I think the Vatican will say that, in producing the New Vulgate: We did NOT change anything doctrinally or substantively in the “old Latin Vulgate” - we merely “cleared up” mistranslations/mis-transliterations in light of newly discovered ancient texts (certain papyrii, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).
But I still stick to my original statement: I have yet to see an infallible promulgation (I am NOT saying it does not exist - I am saying I haven’t seen it) that the New Vulgate has replaced the “old Latin Vulgate” of St. Jerome.
Caveat No. 2: Many people think that when they are reading the Duoay-Rheims Bibles, they are reading the version of St. Jerome. 99 times out of 100 (or probably even higher) they NOT. MANY changes have occurred in St. Jerome’s text. We have Challoner’s translation (the most popular in terms of number existing), the Haydock DR (which, interestingly, was the exact Bible used to swear in John F. Kennedy as President of the United States), the Msgr. Knox translation, and more recently, the DR produced by Dr. William von Peters (of which I have a copy).
The von Peters version is described as follows: “This is the original and true Rheims New Testament published by the English College in Rheims in 1582. It has been “lost” for 423 years due its being in old english. Dr. William G. von Peters has transliterated the text into modern english. Its copious marginal notes and voluminous annotations make it a superb study bible with references from the Apostles, Fathers of the Church and Saints.”
Note that the von Peters translations, published in 1986, do NOT have the approval of any bishop or of the Vatican.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Mr. Conte:
The following constitutes the pronouncement by the Council of Florence concerning the Bible:
"It [meaning, the Catholic Church in Rome] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
I humbly and respectfully submit that the above is NOT an infallible teaching as to what should or should not constitute the canon of the Holy Bible. The usual definitive wording is not present (as it is in ex cathedra statements).
In addition, if the above wording was as definitive as you contend, I do NOT think that Trent needed to say the following before it went on to list the books of both the OT and NT - it could have simply referenced the “Council of Florence” decree as being infallible. Yet, instead, Trent goes on to state:
“It [the Council of Trent] 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.”
Obviously, the Council of Trent thought that the decree in Florence was open to some doubt.
Again, I say these things with utmost humility and respect. I think it impossible for someone like me, a layman, no matter how much training and study I have had as an attorney and an orthodox Catholic, can give an “infallible” explanation that should be accepted as correct. I may very well be wrong in what I have said or what I have interpreted.
I am certainly open to being corrected by anyone.
The following constitutes the pronouncement by the Council of Florence concerning the Bible:
"It [meaning, the Catholic Church in Rome] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."
I humbly and respectfully submit that the above is NOT an infallible teaching as to what should or should not constitute the canon of the Holy Bible. The usual definitive wording is not present (as it is in ex cathedra statements).
In addition, if the above wording was as definitive as you contend, I do NOT think that Trent needed to say the following before it went on to list the books of both the OT and NT - it could have simply referenced the “Council of Florence” decree as being infallible. Yet, instead, Trent goes on to state:
“It [the Council of Trent] 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.”
Obviously, the Council of Trent thought that the decree in Florence was open to some doubt.
Again, I say these things with utmost humility and respect. I think it impossible for someone like me, a layman, no matter how much training and study I have had as an attorney and an orthodox Catholic, can give an “infallible” explanation that should be accepted as correct. I may very well be wrong in what I have said or what I have interpreted.
I am certainly open to being corrected by anyone.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
As an example of ex cathedra pronouncements and arguments over whether statements are or not of that degree/characterization, consider JPII’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
I happen to believe that all of the requirements for an ex cathedra*** decree were present regarding the purported “woman priesthood”. Many do not. I think the matter is closed. Many do not.
After recalling the many examples in history of the male-only priesthood, and how debate nevertheless continued, JPII says the following:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
If the above decree does not constitute a dogmatic infallible pronouncement, I don’t know what would.
I mentioned before that referring to something as both “dogmatic” and “infallible” is probably redundant. I don’t know any dogma that is not also infallible; I think dogma is, by definition, infallible.
I happen to believe that all of the requirements for an ex cathedra*** decree were present regarding the purported “woman priesthood”. Many do not. I think the matter is closed. Many do not.
After recalling the many examples in history of the male-only priesthood, and how debate nevertheless continued, JPII says the following:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
If the above decree does not constitute a dogmatic infallible pronouncement, I don’t know what would.
I mentioned before that referring to something as both “dogmatic” and “infallible” is probably redundant. I don’t know any dogma that is not also infallible; I think dogma is, by definition, infallible.
E
ERose
Guest
I would like to point out something in the original post that may be off topic here but I have to add my two cents. I my opinion the so called Biblical Historians have lost all creditability because that want to make assumptions and then defend those assumptions instead of trying to determine if there is any shred of truth to their assumptions. There is no actual empirical proof that can be used to date any of the documents in either Canon. The tools that they use are inappropiate to say the least. One of their primary tools determine the age of the document is prophecy fulfillment. In their view if a prophecy is proclaimed that was fulfilled and that date is known then the book must have been written after the fulfillment of the prophecy. What a joke. There is no consideration that the prophecy proclaimed was an actual prophecy written before the actual occurrance. That is the reason why all of the Gospels were believed to be written at a later date than the fall of Jerusalem.
Also with all of this rubbish about the Gospel of John being edited by other people or the letters of John not written by the writer of the Gospel of John is rubbish as well. The only one in my opinion that may be questioned is the 3rd letter but the 1st and 2nd letter is obvious that it came from the same mind.
This addition of Mark rubbish is due to those who believe that there is a “secret” gospel of Mark that if found would show that Jesus was a homosexual. Again rubbish. Most of these people who claim to be these Biblical Scholors now in these days are idiots and are striving to destroy the authority of the scriptures in any way they can. They just keep throwing stupid theories out there until one sticks and becomes accepted. They have no concrete evidence for the majority of the rubbish they publish or proclaim on the History Channel.
Also with all of this rubbish about the Gospel of John being edited by other people or the letters of John not written by the writer of the Gospel of John is rubbish as well. The only one in my opinion that may be questioned is the 3rd letter but the 1st and 2nd letter is obvious that it came from the same mind.
This addition of Mark rubbish is due to those who believe that there is a “secret” gospel of Mark that if found would show that Jesus was a homosexual. Again rubbish. Most of these people who claim to be these Biblical Scholors now in these days are idiots and are striving to destroy the authority of the scriptures in any way they can. They just keep throwing stupid theories out there until one sticks and becomes accepted. They have no concrete evidence for the majority of the rubbish they publish or proclaim on the History Channel.
L
lon
Guest
Salvatore 123: I don’t think we are all that far apart. I don’t think that at this late date the church is going to add to the Canon of Scripture. I am merely saying that if that were to occur, it wouldn’t disturb my faith as it would if, for example, hypothetically supposing the impossible, the Church were to change the teaching on the impossibility of the ordination of women.
Also, as a mere quibble - the text you quoted from the Council of Trent was an English translation (in fact, the same one that I was using), not the verbatim Latin text of the Council. As far as I know that translation accurately reflects the meaning of the Latin original, but it is the Latin text that is normative.
Lon
Also, as a mere quibble - the text you quoted from the Council of Trent was an English translation (in fact, the same one that I was using), not the verbatim Latin text of the Council. As far as I know that translation accurately reflects the meaning of the Latin original, but it is the Latin text that is normative.
Lon
S
Salvatore123
Guest
ER,
I must agree with you on much of what you wrote. We know for certain that the majority of the NT was written after Christ died. But take the Gospels, for example. How can we be absolutely certain that ALL parts of them were written even before Christ died? I submit that we cannot.
What prevents us from considering the possibility that some of the Gospel writers began writing their accounts while Jesus was still alive, and then added to those accounts after he was killed and rose?
We can make educated guesses, based on information provided in the Gospels, such as Herod the Great was in power when X occurred, Herod Antipas was in power when John the Baptist was killed, the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70AD, Jesus was crucified during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius and we know that Tiberius ruled from X to Y, etc.
But when people begin making DEFINITIVE claims about writings based on oral tradition, when those writings were not written for historical accuracy as far as dates, then those people begin to lose credibility.
Consider the period of Christ’s ministry on earth. Even now, historical theologians cannot agree on how long that took place.
I must agree with you on much of what you wrote. We know for certain that the majority of the NT was written after Christ died. But take the Gospels, for example. How can we be absolutely certain that ALL parts of them were written even before Christ died? I submit that we cannot.
What prevents us from considering the possibility that some of the Gospel writers began writing their accounts while Jesus was still alive, and then added to those accounts after he was killed and rose?
We can make educated guesses, based on information provided in the Gospels, such as Herod the Great was in power when X occurred, Herod Antipas was in power when John the Baptist was killed, the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70AD, Jesus was crucified during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius and we know that Tiberius ruled from X to Y, etc.
But when people begin making DEFINITIVE claims about writings based on oral tradition, when those writings were not written for historical accuracy as far as dates, then those people begin to lose credibility.
Consider the period of Christ’s ministry on earth. Even now, historical theologians cannot agree on how long that took place.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Lon,
I stand corrected. I certainly did not intend to mislead anyone.
When I said “verbatim”, I said so with the assumption that the text I quoted was an accurate word-for-word translation of the original from Latin into English.
I know Latin, but not well enough to translate something that long on my own and then claim it is 100% accurate.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
And on the matter of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you pretty much answered your own question/statement when you said “hypothetically impossible”. Ordination of women simply ain’t goin’ to happen
I stand corrected. I certainly did not intend to mislead anyone.
When I said “verbatim”, I said so with the assumption that the text I quoted was an accurate word-for-word translation of the original from Latin into English.
I know Latin, but not well enough to translate something that long on my own and then claim it is 100% accurate.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
And on the matter of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, you pretty much answered your own question/statement when you said “hypothetically impossible”. Ordination of women simply ain’t goin’ to happen
- Status