Who had the final say on which books are inspired?

[adf417]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottice
I It should be pointed out that it was not until the year 1547 at the council of Trent that the canon was formally defined. That came as a result of Luther and his protestant buddies. Before then there was no need for a formal definition of the canon as the canon of the Vulgate was universally accepted.

First of all the council of Rome was not a General Council but rather a local synod just like the ones at Hippo and Carthage a few years later. Being a local council the synod failed to meet the requisites for infallibility as it lacked universality. The canon of scripture was also defined at the council of Florence [about 100 years before trent] but the canons of that council were directed to a particular Eastern Rite church and therefore also lacked the requisite of universality. In about 408 AD Pope innocent I responded to a letter from a bishop in France concerning the Canon and listed the 73 books also. But again this was a private letter and lacked the requisite universality needed for infallibility. Trent was a General Council of the whole church and thus met the requirement for universality.

Do you see the irony in the bolded statement?

I do not think anyone but Catholics believe Trent to be a truly ecumenical council but non-Catholics are quick to say Trent was when the Catholic Church “officially” closed the canon. Can Trent officially do anything if it is not a truly ecumenical council essentially making Trent no more “official” than the early councils which first promulgated the canon. What ARE Catholics to do?

Peace!!!

 

[Ignatius]

First of all the council of Rome was not a General Council . . . …

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***

Deny it all you want, That is an official declaration by The Pope and the same Canon was confirmed again and again down through the ages. Trent Dogmatically confirmed the exact same canon.

 

[cottice]

Do you see the irony in the bolded statement?

I do not think anyone but Catholics believe Trent to be a truly ecumenical council but non-Catholics are quick to say Trent was when the Catholic Church “officially” closed the canon. Can Trent officially do anything if it is not a truly ecumenical council essentially making Trent no more “official” than the early councils which first promulgated the canon. What ARE Catholics to do?

Peace!!!

Are you saying that the whole Church was not present at Trent. If so may I remind you that only 318 bishops attended Nicea but over 1800 were invited. Nicea dealt with the Arian heresy that affected the Eastern Church. The bishop of Constantinople was an Arian. In fact the first eight councils dealt with Eastern Churches heresies. Are they then not ecumenical also? Furthermore what does it matter what people believe. The church is not a democracy where the majority wins the vote. In both cases, Nicea and Trent the council was proposed as a General Council.

 

[cottice]

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
***It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***

Deny it all you want, That is an official declaration by The Pope and the same Canon was confirmed again and again down through the ages. Trent Dogmatically confirmed the exact same canon.

Yes it is an official declaration by the pope but the Church does not consider it to be the formal definition of the Canon of Scripture. Why? Look at what is missing? The synod of Rome was not a General Council but a local synod of the diocese of Rome. The Pope attendance there is as the bishop of the diocese and not as Pope of the Universal Church. The decrees of the synod are therefore forceable locally and not universally although they may have some application beyond the local area. The canon of scripture was also defined at the Council of Florence in 1437, a hundred years before Trent. This council is listed as a general council but parts of it are not considered as such. This is because the council dealt with the reunification of the Church after the Great Schism and parts of the council dealt with individual churches and not the universal church. The definition of the canon appears in one such part aimed at one particular church. The Church has maintained that the canon was formally defined at Trent. Also Pope Innocent I in 408 answered a letter from another bishop inquiring on the canon. He responded with the same list of books devised by Athanasius, Rome, Hippo, Carthage and the Vulgate. However, because his letter was directed to a particular person and not to the universal church it is not considered to be an infallible teaching nor a formal definition of the canon.

 

[Ignatius]

Yes it is an official declaration by the pope

Like I said, deny it all you want, I’m not going to argue about it; it is an official declaration by the pope, period.

 

[adf417]

Are you saying that the whole Church was not present at Trent. If so may I remind you that only 318 bishops attended Nicea but over 1800 were invited. Nicea dealt with the Arian heresy that affected the Eastern Church. The bishop of Constantinople was an Arian. In fact the first eight councils dealt with Eastern Churches heresies. Are they then not ecumenical also? Furthermore what does it matter what people believe. The church is not a democracy where the majority wins the vote. In both cases, Nicea and Trent the council was proposed as a General Council.

No cottice that’s not what I’m saying. I was just saying for a non-Catholic to suggest or acknowledge that the Catholic Church officially closed the canon at Trent is self refuting.

They, the non-Catholics, not me, do not accept Trent as ecumenical, in its truest sense, as they also do not with the early councils of Rome, Carthage & Hippo which first dealt with the canon. We can all agree the canon was officially closed at Trent and this is advantageous for non-Catholics to twist this and say we added books to the bible at that time, but for a non-Catholic to consider Trent as “official” should make them reconsider the early councils as equally official. Sense they don’t we can only make it official from only our perspective which is what was being done in the early councils.

Sorry if this is disjointed. Not good at expressing my thoughts.

Peace!!!

 

[commenter]

Many posts have focused on the past, initiating the canon. But what holds the NT canon in place, in the present? To some extent it’s just momentum, but a few Christians are beginning to challenge the whole process now; they say since the canon was closed merely by church authority, it can be reopened per the desire of people. They argue that it’s not enough to have “inclusive translations”, we need an “inclusive canon”, with new books added, and others now subtracted, in order to meet the needs of 21 century Christians.
They would say that “sola scriptura” means not only that you, not some church authority should interpret scripture, but that you can pick out which ancient books are “scripture” to you; what inspires you might not inspire the next guy.

What is the main force that will try to maintain the “traditional” 27 book canon of the NT now? It would be the same force that “canonized” the NT books in the first place - the Magisterium. I predict wherever the Magisterium is strong, the 27 book NT canon will hold among Christians. Where the Magisterium is not strong, other canons will emerge.

 

[michaelhager]

Thanks for admitting that!

Indeed. So when we see that the book of Isaiah has 66 chapters, should we toss it out as Antichrist? And also…the beast and the dragon have 7 heads in the book of Revelation…and there is a Satanic Trinity (dragon, beast, false prophet).

It does matter. I’ll quote Romans 3:2 again:

“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews[a] were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Rom. 3:1-2 (NRSV)

No, they were not.

Well, I was trying to throw a little levity in here. We’re taking this a little too seriously. (This post) No we should not throw out any books because they have 66 chapters. I don’t believe in the superstitions of biblical numbers and for the most part they are irrelevant. The importance of numbers in the bible is related to the society and beliefs of the times and cultures in which they were written and that is a completely different discussion. Please do not expound upon that here. My apologies for bringing it up.

It appears however, that even some of us Catholics here are debating the authority of the Church to decide on it’s own canon of scripture, but here is the thing. The original Church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself, given all authority in Heaven by Christ Himself, decided on a list of writings that would be used to help guide the Church into eternity. That what they did has lasted 2000 years should be testimony enough to convince us that it is correct.

The argument is often made that the bible is divinely inspired and some even postulate that God Himself was the author, through man. Only after 1500 years did a single solitary man decide that the first 1500 years of Bishops commissioned by Jesus were wrong and he threw out seven books, not to mention removing parts of Danial and Joel, that he did not personally agree with, Which is right? I’m going to stick with the wisdom of thousands of Church fathers.

Yes, what the Jews thought is of importance to the church because of our foundation of Judaism. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament makes no sense. There are clearly passages in the New Testament where Jesus Himself is following traditions and concepts defined only in the seven books that Luther didn’t like. The very fact that Jesus’ life referred to these books is reason enough to include them in the Cannon regardless of what the Jews thought about them.

Paul did say that ALL scripture is useful for teaching… so why are we arguing about the validity of those books? He was talking about ALL scripture, even those seven books that many Jews considered holy and many did not. Clearly some of the Apostles thought them Holy or they would not have referred to any of them when writing about Jesus.

We have beat this horse to death, and it’s obvious that none of us here will give in to the other. Let us agree to disagree and move on to other things.

Amen…

 

[cottice]

No cottice that’s not what I’m saying. I was just saying for a non-Catholic to suggest or acknowledge that the Catholic Church officially closed the canon at Trent is self refuting.

They, the non-Catholics, not me, do not accept Trent as ecumenical, in its truest sense, as they also do not with the early councils of Rome, Carthage & Hippo which first dealt with the canon. We can all agree the canon was officially closed at Trent and this is advantageous for non-Catholics to twist this and say we added books to the bible at that time, but for a non-Catholic to consider Trent as “official” should make them reconsider the early councils as equally official. Sense they don’t we can only make it official from only our perspective which is what was being done in the early councils.

Sorry if this is disjointed. Not good at expressing my thoughts.

Peace!!!

My point isthat Trent is a General council because it was called as one. The synods at Rome, Hippo and Carthagewere oly called as local councils. That is a big difference. The decisions made at Trent affected the universal (whole) church. Those decisions made at the Synods of made at Rome Hippo and Carthage were intended to affect the local churches. They were not binding on the rest of the Church. As for protestants not accepting Trent, I fail to see where that matters. Just chalk that up with all the other errors of their belief systems.

 

[Ignatius]

Those decisions made at the Synods of made at Rome . . . were intended to affect the local churches.

Again, that is incorrect. It is clear that what Saint Pope Damasus 1 is decreeing is intended for the Universal Catholic Church.
St. Pope Damasus 1 is decreeing what Scriptures the Universal Catholic Church must accept. That same Canon was confirmed again and again down through the ages. Trent Dogmatically reaffirmed the exact same canon.

Read the declaration by Saint Pope Damasus 1:
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures:*** what the Universal Catholic Church accepts**** and what she must shun****. ***

There is no ambiguity here, these are the Scriptures that The Catholic Church must accept.