The Church. How did the Church determine it?
It’s an honest question. I don’t know, but EO canons include them by and large.
- Status
It’s an honest question. I don’t know, but EO canons include them by and large.
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
Only after they broke away, and separated themselves from the Authority of the Pope. The fact of the matter is what gave Martin Luther the right to split from the church and decide what is inspired or not?
While it is not for me to decide, my own opinion is we should look to the early Church, and value them consistent with how they have been valued throughout the history of the Church.
I myself take a stand similar to Cajetan that they are canon in that they are used liturgically and read for the instruction of the faithful.
They are , over all, inspiring if not inspired.
I
IlCajetan
Guest
Of course I usually use Deuterocannon, but I have seen more people use the term Apocrypha
Just not true. Carthage, Hippo and Rome were local synods, never Claire ecumenical councils and not binding.
Off topic, but the excommunication has something to do with it, ISTM. And the canon was not the reason.
po18guy
Well-known member
Acts 15. Councils. The first council in Jerusalem is why we do not have to be circumcised. The Orthodox split off and do not even agree among themselves as to the number of councils to accept. There were hundreds of writings purporting to be scripture. circulating all over the ancient world. Gnosticism and every manner of heretical writing mixed in with the inspired scrolls.
For this reason, the Church eventually got around to testing and re-testing and settled on documents that were trustworthy and small-o orthodox. It took hundreds of years to stamp out Gnosticism, Arianism, other minor heresies and once for all settle the New Testament canon.
Why so long?
Because the Church was not founded on scripture.
For this reason, the Church eventually got around to testing and re-testing and settled on documents that were trustworthy and small-o orthodox. It took hundreds of years to stamp out Gnosticism, Arianism, other minor heresies and once for all settle the New Testament canon.
Why so long?
Because the Church was not founded on scripture.
And yet your first reference in the post is scripture.
How do you know?
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
- It was binding because that was what was decided by the Pope. Nobody questioned/acted on it until they either split off or became heretical.
- How is that irrelevant in any way? He was the dude who started the Reformation. so what gave him the authority to make his own theology?
Side note: If you are implying that the council of Rome which DID decide the canon of the Bible, until the split with the Eastern Orthodox, was not binding I would ask why nobody opposed it. Because I think where this is coming from is the Dogmatic Statement at Trent which officially declared it, but that was only because nobody opposed it before then.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Actually, 2 Kings chapter 13 speaks clearly of the miracles brought by the bones of Elisha.
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
Lol, I feel like this is a troll comment, how could it have been written about if i hadn’t happened yet?
Last edited:
Simply not so. These were not considered ecumenical councils. Their decisions not binding on the whole Church. You’re projecting a view of the pope backward.
That’s a rhetorical question. The Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran) reformers believed their theology was apostolic and consistent with the Church Catholic. They state as much in the Augsburg Confession.
Source. There is no codified canon in the Lutheran Confessions. It isn’t the way Lutheranism looks at the canon of scripture.
- Luther’s translation includes the Prayer of Manasseh.
People did. That’s why there are larger canons in the East, and AFAIK, not a significant condemnation from Rome
But they did. Catholics did. In the west, I minority view, to be sure. There was even opposition to the DC’s at Trent.
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
Ok, well if you’re not going to provide sufficient answers for why Martin Luther was God’s chosen instrument for fixing an “apostate” church you can believe that. But I think that’s putting a lot of trust in a man’s personal interpretation and personal authority. It still doesn’t agree with Christ when he said “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”
I’ll trust Jesus on this one.
I’ll trust Jesus on this one.
That was his comment, not mine. My question is how do we know. We know because of scripture.
In discussions such as this, I’m always puzzled why some western traditions/communions / denominations will argue scripture only to the point of rejecting the ECFs and the early Church. Meanwhile, some Catholics respond by trying to minimize the importance of scripture.
On the canon, I believe Rome has a solid argument to defend the 73 book canon based on the historic record of the western Church. “Because the pope said so” isn’t the strong argument.
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
That’s illogical, it simply could not have been written if it didn’t happen yet.
None of the New Testament existed before Peter was chosen by Christ to be the 1st among equals. He made all the decisions when the choices got tough. That’s historical and true. Without the Pope there could not be a council to call and there would not be a Bible. Plain and simple.
None of the New Testament existed before Peter was chosen by Christ to be the 1st among equals. He made all the decisions when the choices got tough. That’s historical and true. Without the Pope there could not be a council to call and there would not be a Bible. Plain and simple.
A rhetorical comment filled with falsehoods. First, Luther never made the claim the Catholic Church was apostate. If you read that somewhere, it is a lie.
Second, I never made such an idiotic claim, so why would I provide “sufficient answers” for such?
More polemics. Catholics have no exclusive claim on St. Peter, his confessions of faith, or Christ’s promise that His Church, of which I am a full member, will prevail.
po18guy
Well-known member
Luke wrote it down and the Catholic Church preserved it. Luke did not teach that his writings were a sole rule.
Simple questions:
Q: Did Jesus found His Church on the bible?
Q2: Did Jesus teach that the Church would fail and need a European makeover?
A: (crickets)
Simple questions:
Q: Did Jesus found His Church on the bible?
- Yes.
- No.
Q2: Did Jesus teach that the Church would fail and need a European makeover?
A: (crickets)
Amen to first among equals. That is contradicted by universal jurisdiction.
Never alone. James was in charge in Acts. Paul chastised him in Galatians.
And without the others, the pope’s local councils only apply to those in communion with him.
So, it was written down and that’s how we know.
It is a false dichotomy. We have the Church founded by Christ at Pentecost. We have scripture because God knew we needed the written word. They are not separate.
How often did Christ say, “ it is written.”
Why did God write the Decalogue on tablets?
Rome is in Europe. Is that what you mean? It sounds like a question an Eastern Orthodox would ask.
Again, a false dichotomy.
Thomas Aquinas was from Europe.
- Status