Who determined the cannon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damo73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Damo73

Guest
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.
 
No, because at the time of the Councils, there was only one Church, and that was the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox didn’t split off until about 600 years later, so there was no Orthodox Church at the time of the Councils. If I remember correctly, the Councils sent their findings to Rome for approval.

Peace,
Linda
 
LindaS said:
No, because at the time of the Councils, there was only one Church, and that was the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox didn’t split off until about 600 years later, so there was no Orthodox Church at the time of the Councils. If I remember correctly, the Councils sent their findings to Rome for approval.

Peace,
Linda
Click to expand...
👍
 
Rome did not have control in the early church yes 588 AD marked the beginning of a great power struggle and rivalry between Old Rome (West, Italy) and New Rome (East, Constantinople). It was actually this power struggle that accelerated the Bishop of Rome to take on the title of Universal Bishop. Neither one was “over” the others district, but were viewed as equals, although Rome had made claims of supremacy that were not accepted elsewhere.
Later this title was confirmed to John IV., the Faster, when he was officially proclaimed “universal bishop” via a synod in 588 AD by the emperor. Gregory strongly renounced any suggestion that he was a “universal Bishop” and viciously objected to John IV’s use of it.
Gregory warns that John’s use of “Universal Bishop” is a sign the antichrist was near! He was referring to this verse: “Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the second coming] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thess 2:3-4)
What is most important here, is that when John IV, Patriarch of Constantinople, started calling himself the “Universal Bishop” Gregory I, Patriarch of Rome, did not say, “Hey that’s my title, you have right to wear it.” Instead Gregory said that no man should consider himself the “Universal Bishop” calling it the sign the “antichrist” was near. (see 2 Thess 2:3-4) The bishop of Constantinople, John IV. was saying, “I am over you”, Gregory was saying, “we are equal”, even though Gregory would readily admit he, not John, was a successor of Apostle Peter.
 
Damo73 said:
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.
Click to expand...
No, The Synods and first Councils were held in the East by the Eastern Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church didn’t show up on the scene until hundreds of years later.
 
Damo73 said:
Rome did not have control in the early church yes 588 AD marked the beginning of a great power struggle and rivalry between Old Rome (West, Italy) and New Rome (East, Constantinople). It was actually this power struggle that accelerated the Bishop of Rome to take on the title of Universal Bishop. Neither one was “over” the others district, but were viewed as equals, although Rome had made claims of supremacy that were not accepted elsewhere.
Later this title was confirmed to John IV., the Faster, when he was officially proclaimed “universal bishop” via a synod in 588 AD by the emperor. Gregory strongly renounced any suggestion that he was a “universal Bishop” and viciously objected to John IV’s use of it.
Gregory warns that John’s use of “Universal Bishop” is a sign the antichrist was near! He was referring to this verse: “Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the second coming] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thess 2:3-4)
What is most important here, is that when John IV, Patriarch of Constantinople, started calling himself the “Universal Bishop” Gregory I, Patriarch of Rome, did not say, “Hey that’s my title, you have right to wear it.” Instead Gregory said that no man should consider himself the “Universal Bishop” calling it the sign the “antichrist” was near. (see 2 Thess 2:3-4) The bishop of Constantinople, John IV. was saying, “I am over you”, Gregory was saying, “we are equal”, even though Gregory would readily admit he, not John, was a successor of Apostle Peter.
Click to expand...
The Primacy of Rome and the Successor of Peter is found in many eariler documents. You can start with Clement, possibly before 100AD.
 
Damo73 said:
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
Click to expand...
Well, there are a few things to consider here. The first is that several canons were constructed, at different times and in different places. The Scripture canon of Hippo and Carthage was constructed in Latin-speaking north Africa, within the see of Rome rather than that of Greek-speaking Alexandria.

Second, this canon has never applied to the Orthodox, who follow the larger collection of the entire Septuagint. What made this canon so authoritative for the later Roman Catholic Church was that it was approved by the bishop of Rome, and thus promulgated throughout the west.

As for whether Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox are the true heirs of the original Church, the answer is as simple as it is obvious: both are. The Greek and Latin ends of the Church separated from each other: it was a bilateral divorce, not a unilateral one.
 
Damo73 said:
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.
Click to expand...
As an Orthodox, may I put in my 2 cents…?

The church then is deemed to be ‘one’ church.

Hippo and Carthage (both in northern Africa) are considered Latin in orientation as Augustine, one of the principles of Latin dogma is from Hippo. So if anything one might argue that this favours the west.

One man given the task of compiling the canon was also western, Irenaeus from Lugdunum in Gaul (now known as Lyon), also in the west.

It was his canon that was examined and believed to be ‘the one’ (for want of a better term).

However, emphasising the ‘oneness’ of the church it was the Synod of Laodicea (c.363) (in Anatolia) that was first tasked with determining which books could be used in church.

But simply put there was one church
 
Mystophilus said:
Well, there are a few things to consider here. The first is that several canons were constructed, at different times and in different places. The Scripture canon of Hippo and Carthage was constructed in Latin-speaking north Africa, within the see of Rome rather than that of Greek-speaking Alexandria.

Second, this canon has never applied to the Orthodox, who follow the larger collection of the entire Septuagint. What made this canon so authoritative for the later Roman Catholic Church was that it was approved by the bishop of Rome, and thus promulgated throughout the west.

As for whether Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox are the true heirs of the original Church, the answer is as simple as it is obvious: both are. The Greek and Latin ends of the Church separated from each other: it was a bilateral divorce, not a unilateral one.
Click to expand...
Saying it this way leave the impression that after the Orthodox split that there was no Eastern Catholic Church. There was still an Eastern Catholic Church. Not everyone split.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Saying it this way leave the impression that after the Orthodox split that there was no Eastern Catholic Church. There was still an Eastern Catholic Church. Not everyone split.
Click to expand...
Actually several Eastern churches ‘re-joined’ rather than ‘remained’.

That is, after eastern churches and western churches had separated, some of the eastern churches then made deals to be joined back with Rome, which is why they still have the same Liturgy, priests who are married, etc.

As a sweetner to do the deal, they were allowed to keep these.
 
Montalban said:
Actually several Eastern churches ‘re-joined’ rather than ‘remained’.

That is, after eastern churches and western churches had separated, some of the eastern churches then made deals to be joined back with Rome, which is why they still have the same Liturgy, priests who are married, etc.

As a sweetner to do the deal, they were allowed to keep these.
Click to expand...
There are Eastern Catholic Churches that never left Union with the Bishop of Rome and some Eastern Catholics that never left, even though their Church defected from Catholic unity.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Saying it this way leave the impression that after the Orthodox split that there was no Eastern Catholic Church. There was still an Eastern Catholic Church. Not everyone split.
Click to expand...
My apologies: when simplifying, I tend towards excess.
 
Montalban said:
However, emphasising the ‘oneness’ of the church it was the Synod of Laodicea (c.363) (in Anatolia) that was first tasked with determining which books could be used in church.
Click to expand...
That canon is suspected, as a result of its omission from the older manuscripts recording those decisions, of being a late addition to the decisions of the council. It is also identical to the one expressed by Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures (iv. 35-6; AD 347-8), and so might well have been copied from there.

In other words, Laodicea might never have determined a canon.
 
There were also many western “discussions” about the true canon the most famous of which was that of the opposition of St. Jerome to the Alexandrian canon in favor of the Palestinian Canon. However, after Rome made approval of the canon approved by Hippo the submitted to Rome on this issue.
 
Damo73 said:
Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.
Click to expand...
If this were true then the Eastern Orthodox would follow this Canon as well, wouldn’t they?

Don’t the Eastern Orthodox have a few more books in their OT Canon, such as Macabbees III and IV? If I’m mistaken, I’m terribly sorry.
 
God determined the canon as the writters of scripture were lead by the Holy Spirit. Men only discovered what the canon was by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
 
allischalmers said:
God determined the canon as the writters of scripture were lead by the Holy Spirit. Men only discovered what the canon was by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
Click to expand...
And who were these men? Catholics of Apostolic succession led by the Holy Spirit. Not a single Baptist was involved. Doesn’t that tell you something??
 
The Bible’s Canon was determined through two of the many great gifts Christ left us:
a) The Holy Spirit’s guidance of
b) The Church.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
There are Eastern Catholic Churches that never left Union with the Bishop of Rome and some Eastern Catholics that never left, even though their Church defected from Catholic unity.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the FYI. I never made a claim to the contrary

Here’s the re-join dates of the ones that did
The Holy See’s Annuario Pontificio gives the following list of Eastern Catholic Churches and of countries (or other political areas) in which they possess an episcopal ecclesiastical jurisdiction (date of reunion in parenthesis):
Alexandrian liturgical tradition
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Egypt (1741)
Ethiopic Catholic Church (metropolia): Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, USA, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syrian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States of America (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church (patriarchate): Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Palestine, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States and Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church (patriarchate): Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States of America (1692)
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): India, United States of America (at latest, 1599)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church (apostolic administration): Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic exarchate): Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church (two apostolic exarchates): Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church (patriarchate): Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Brazil, USA, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (major archiepiscopate): Romania, United States of America (1697)
Russian Byzantine Catholic Church: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church (a sui juris metropolia, an eparchy, and an apostolic exarchate): United States of America, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (two eparchies and an apostolic exarchate): Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (major archiepiscopate): Ukraine, Poland, USA, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniate_Church
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top