Wrong bible for first 1500 years?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Unfortunately I don’t think a discussion about it can take place. If person A rejects the ecclesiology and legitimacy and validity of person B’s church, then there is really no point in even debating the issue. The whole enterprise is tainted, unfortunately, from person A’s point of view so anything person B says is wrong. There has to be a common ground.

1holycatholic,

The discussion of the Biblical Canon in the first 1500 years lead to a discussion of the Anglican Canon, which lead to the differences of beliefs in the Anglican Communion about the Anglican Canon, which lead to your question, “Why use a term like communion (i.e. common union) when that’s not the case?” I answered that question and now we are into the “Anglican orders are invalid” argument and the claim that I have redefined the Church to accommodate heresy. We are way off topic here.

I’ve heard the “Anglican orders are invalid” argument repeatedly on this forum. There have been a number of threads dedicated to the subject. Obviously, I disagree with you on this issue; but this is not a thread dedicated to this subject. So, let’s get back to the topic of the Biblical Canon.

Peace,
Anna

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic,

The discussion of the Biblical Canon in the first 1500 years lead to a discussion of the Anglican Canon, which lead to the differences of beliefs in the Anglican Communion about the Anglican Canon, which lead to your question, “Why use a term like communion (i.e. common union) when that’s not the case?” I answered that question and now we are into the “Anglican orders are invalid” argument and the claim that I have redefined the Church to accommodate heresy. We are way off topic here.

I’ve heard the “Anglican orders are invalid” argument repeatedly on this forum. There have been a number of threads dedicated to the subject. Obviously, I disagree with you on this issue; but this is not a thread dedicated to this subject. So, let’s get back to the topic of the Biblical Canon.

We aren’t off topic. The Canon of Scripture is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Catholic Church given to her by Jesus her founder. Jews do not have any authority to determine the Canon of Scripture, nor do schismatics or heretics. Only the Catholic Church has that authority given to her by Christ himself.

The Catholic Church is the custodian of the Sacraments. The Catholic Church which Christ established declares that Anglican orders are invalid with the same authority that she declared the Canon of Scripture.

The Canon of Scripture is infallibly and authoritatively defined by the Church as having seventy three books.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Didn’t you mean that Protestants are moving closer to the CC and the CC is moving closer to Protestants by the following statement?

If not, then what is the “CC is moving closer to,” in your opinion?. . . .

Jim,

I meant this in an “ecumenical” sense; recognizing, as the Intro to the RSV-CE points out: at this point in history, Catholics and Protestants have less cause for being suspicious of Biblical texts used in each other’s Bible translations–since the “Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

Less suspicion of each other’s motives in Bible translations is certainly a step forward, is it not? So, in this sense, I do see us moving closer together.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

We aren’t off topic. The Canon of Scripture is an exercise of the infallible authority of the Catholic Church given to her by Jesus her founder. Jews do not have any authority to determine the Canon of Scripture, nor do schismatics or heretics. Only the Catholic Church has that authority given to her by Christ himself.

The Catholic Church is the custodian of the Sacraments. The Catholic Church which Christ established declares that Anglican orders are invalid with the same authority that she declared the Canon of Scripture.

The Canon of Scripture is infallibly and authoritatively defined by the Church as having seventy three books.

You do realize that I accept the Catholic Canon? But, obviously, we can’t have a conversation about the Canon, without your pulling out the “invalid orders” club. uch: I’ve been beaten over the head with that “club” more times than I can count.

Unfortunately I don’t think a discussion about it can take place. If person A rejects the ecclesiology and legitimacy and validity of person B’s church, then there is really no point in even debating the issue. The whole enterprise is tainted, unfortunately, from person A’s point of view so anything person B says is wrong. There has to be a common ground.

1holycatholic just proved your point; and there does have to be some common ground.

I actually thought we had some common ground involving Biblical translations and Canon; but 1holycatholic can’t get past the invalid orders issue, which makes any common ground appear null and void.

Peace,
Anna

 

[1holycatholic]

You do realize that I accept the Catholic Canon? But, obviously, we can’t have a conversation about the Canon, without your pulling out the “invalid orders” club. uch: I’ve been beaten over the head with that “club” more times than I can count.

There are historical facts about the Canon and of the Church that you will not admit.

The invalidity of Anglican orders is not a matter for discussion the matter is closed.

The Validity of Anglican Holy Orders
“In the 20th century, scholars began to revisit this issue, noting that the members of Pope Leo’s commission were not unanimous in their findings, and raising the theoretical possibility that the papal bull might have been wrong. But in 1998 the Church officially laid this matter to rest. Pope John Paul II issued his motu proprio document, Ad Tuendam Fidem, primarily to assert that there are some doctrinal issues which the Church holds are not open to debate. (Other aspects of this document were discussed in the October 21, 2010 column.) Within a few weeks, a companion document was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—with the Pope’s advance knowledge and consent, of course—then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. This second document provided a list of many theological issues which the Catholic Church holds to have already been settled once and for all. One of the examples of matters listed as “connected to revelation by historical necessity” and “to be held definitively,” is the invalidity of Anglican orders (11). This means that Catholic theologians, even in good faith, may not entertain discussions about the possibility that Leo XIII’s commission erred on this issue. The matter is closed.”

1holycatholic just proved your point; and there does have to be some common ground.

I actually thought we had some common ground involving Biblical translations; but 1holycatholic can’t get past the invalid orders issue, which makes any common ground appear null and void.

It’s not about translations, it’s about the Canon.

And the Canon is a question of authority, Christ’s authority which He conferred on His Catholic Church vs. the self-proclaimed authority of others.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There are historical facts about the Canon and of the Church that you will not admit.

The invalidity of Anglican orders is not a matter for discussion the matter is closed.

The Validity of Anglican Holy Orders
“In the 20th century, scholars began to revisit this issue, noting that the members of Pope Leo’s commission were not unanimous in their findings, and raising the theoretical possibility that the papal bull might have been wrong. But in 1998 the Church officially laid this matter to rest. Pope John Paul II issued his motu proprio document, Ad Tuendam Fidem, primarily to assert that there are some doctrinal issues which the Church holds are not open to debate. (Other aspects of this document were discussed in the October 21, 2010 column.) Within a few weeks, a companion document was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—with the Pope’s advance knowledge and consent, of course—then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. This second document provided a list of many theological issues which the Catholic Church holds to have already been settled once and for all. One of the examples of matters listed as “connected to revelation by historical necessity” and “to be held definitively,” is the invalidity of Anglican orders (11). This means that Catholic theologians, even in good faith, may not entertain discussions about the possibility that Leo XIII’s commission erred on this issue. The matter is closed.”
.

1holycatholic,
If you want to discuss the validity of Anglican orders, either start a new thread or discuss it with Anglicans on this thread who are interested, if mpdmed-- the OP, has no objections. The topic has been “done to death” already in multiple CAF threads. So, it’s a repeat for me.

Peace,
Anna

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic,
If you want to discuss the validity of Anglican orders, either start a new thread or discuss it with Anglicans on this thread who are interested, if mpdmed-- the OP, has no objections. The topic has been “done to death” already in multiple CAF threads. So, it’s a repeat for me.

This thread boils down to an issue of authority. The Catholic Church has Christ’s authority, Anglicans and others outside the Church do not.

 

[Bluegoat]

This thread boils down to an issue of authority. The Catholic Church has Christ’s authority, Anglicans and others outside the Church do not.

All you are really saying here is you are not really willing to discuss the question in any meaningful way, because whatever the CC says is true.

You’re a bit off, because in fact the CC has no beef with the Eastern or Oriental canons, and those existed historically in the Church pre-schism. So you will have to reconcile that in your own mind. But there is no point discussing any theology or doctrine with you if you just want to say “whatever the CC says is right”. That is a pretty boring discussion.

 

[1holycatholic]

You’re a bit off, because in fact the CC has no beef with the Eastern or Oriental canons, and those existed historically in the Church pre-schism.

That statement has no basis in fact.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

All you are really saying here is you are not really willing to discuss the question in any meaningful way, because whatever the CC says is true.

You’re a bit off, because in fact the CC has no beef with the Eastern or Oriental canons, and those existed historically in the Church pre-schism. So you will have to reconcile that in your own mind. But there is no point discussing any theology or doctrine with you if you just want to say “whatever the CC says is right”. That is a pretty boring discussion.

This is the old fallback, ‘whatever the CC says is true’. Then call it a boring discussion?

We are Catholics and you are bored because we believe the CC is the Church Christ started. It’s not going to change.

So, share with us what you expect here? What goals do you have?

 

[Bluegoat]

This is the old fallback, ‘whatever the CC says is true’. Then call it a boring discussion?

We are Catholics and you are bored because we believe the CC is the Church Christ started. It’s not going to change.

So, share with us what you expect here? What goals do you have?

THe OP was asking a question about how people understand the canon - that is how the discussion started.

I think how canons were formed, and what we think they are, is an interesting question. And the CC actually has a position - with actual reasons - about that.

I’d be interested to discuss those.

If a nice pious Catholic simply accepts these things because he accepts the authority of the CC that is fine, I have no beef with that. He can even say so in the thread and I don’t think it is disruptive. But it doesn’t add anything much to the discussion of the reasons.

And to keep trying to tell the people discussing the reasons that the CC says what it does that the reasons don’t matter seems a little stupid. Does the CC think that the reasons don’t matter? Is that really the kind of authority she claims?

What I expect, if you want to discuss the reasons for the canons, give true facts, make logical conclusions, make reasonable or even insightful conclusions, and show us what the CC thinks on the issue. Or say that the CC claims it can make decisions on no basis of reason, or simply say you don’t know or have any interest in knowing what the CC says about it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

THe OP was asking a question about how people understand the canon - that is how the discussion started.

I think how canons were formed, and what we think they are, is an interesting question. And the CC actually has a position - with actual reasons - about that.

I’d be interested to discuss those.

If a nice pious Catholic simply accepts these things because he accepts the authority of the CC that is fine, I have no beef with that. He can even say so in the thread and I don’t think it is disruptive. But it doesn’t add anything much to the discussion of the reasons.

And to keep trying to tell the people discussing the reasons that the CC says what it does that the reasons don’t matter seems a little stupid. Does the CC think that the reasons don’t matter? Is that really the kind of authority she claims?

What I expect, if you want to discuss the reasons for the canons, give true facts, make logical conclusions, make reasonable or even insightful conclusions, and show us what the CC thinks on the issue. Or say that the CC claims it can make decisions on no basis of reason, or simply say you don’t know or have any interest in knowing what the CC says about it.

Christ built His Church, through the men He chose and appointed with all authority. He promised to send the spirit of truth to guide it in all truths and to be with it until the consummation of the world. That’s good enough for me. I’ll take the Church, the body of Christ, which He is the head of. I don’t care how stupid it sounds. It’s called faith.

And that’s not trying to sway anyone, unlike some who pound and pound away at the faith in what appears to be hopes of getting someone to turn on the faith.

 

[Bluegoat]

That statement has no basis in fact.

You actually think that you cannot find different canons in different parts of the Church in the first 1000 years?

Even if you want to make an argument that the East ought to have implemented the same universal canon, in fact, they didn’t. The EO have a different canon and always have, even pre-schism, the Orientals had a different canon before they split off, and the Ethiopian canon has always been different too.

The fact that you keep wanting to deny what is simply historical fact, and something the CC doesn’t even worry about as far as I can see, makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You actually think that you cannot find different canons in different parts of the Church in the first 1000 years?

Even if you want to make an argument that the East ought to have implemented the same universal canon, in fact, they didn’t. The EO have a different canon and always have, even pre-schism, the Orientals had a different canon before they split off, and the Ethiopian canon has always been different too.

The fact that you keep wanting to deny what is simply historical fact, and something the CC doesn’t even worry about as far as I can see, makes it hard to take you seriously.

I think you use the differences to promote points against the Church. I mean, are you a member of one of those Churches or are you only using the differences in an attempt to cast doubt on one of the Churches?

 

[1holycatholic]

You’re a bit off, because in fact the CC has no beef with the Eastern or Oriental canons, and those existed historically in the Church pre-schism.

SESSION THE FOURTH
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Sorry, no exception for different canons.

The fact that you keep wanting to deny what is simply historical fact, and something the CC doesn’t even worry about as far as I can see, makes it hard to take you seriously.

You should take the time to learn what the Church teaches.

Please provide documentation for your claim that Rome accepted different Eastern/Oriental canons after the canon was established in the late fourth century.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think you use the differences to promote points against the Church. I mean, are you a member of one of those Churches or are you only using the differences in an attempt to cast doubt on one of the Churches?

You are missing the point. In every way. First, it doesn’t say anything against Catholicism if the CC doesn’t care that there were, or are, other canons. Which IMO is the case - the Catholic Church doesn’t care that the Orthodox in the East, or the Copts, have a different canon.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter even if I am trying to “score points” or not if I am correct. If it is true they had different canons, just say so. When people deny historical fact because they think it doesn’t look good for their “side” of the argument, it makes them look desperate. This is not a hill any serious Catholic apologist is going to die on.

As it happens, I just think some people don’t understand that the canon has never been this fixed, universal thing. The situation with the Protestant canon is different in a number of ways, but when people misunderstand the canon, they do tend to put too much weight on it. It is a lot easier to understand why medieval people did not think it was so odd to have different ideas about the canon if you realize there were always local variations. Does that mean the Protestant canon was “ok”. No, but it gives more insight into the logic of the decision, which is the whole point of the OPs question, and it suggests what the real nature of the problem was.

It is Protestantism that tends to see the canon as static, fixed, and clearly delineated. I think that it is pretty ironic that Catholics here are trying to take that view to discredit Protestantism. But, maybe they really got that from the reformation era Catholics? It is certainly a departure from the early church.

 

[Bluegoat]

SESSION THE FOURTH
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Sorry, no exception for different canons.

You should take the time to learn what the Church teaches.

This is Trent, it does not address the Eastern differences, at all. You need to learn context. This is a response to the Protestant claims and is refuting their removal of several books. You can’t take these documents out of context this way any more than you can take Scripture out of context this way.

Please provide documentation for your claim that Rome accepted different Eastern/Oriental canons after the canon was established in the late fourth century.

You could try the Wikipedia article on the topic. It is very clear the local canons were continuously maintained.

Or the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that at the time of the schism, the Greek Church (by which it meand Eastern more generally) and was still united to the Roman Church at that time accepted extra texts:

The result of this tendency among the Greeks was that about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees. That all the deuteros were liturgically recognized in the Greek Church at the era of the schism in the ninth century, is indicated by the “Syntagma Canonum” of Photius.

Here again, it admits quite readily that the larger canon was historically normative in the East and among other groups which were once united to the Roman Church (emphasis mine):

The Greek Orthodox Church preserved its ancient Canon in practice as well as theory until recent times … The Monophysites, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians, and Copts, while concerning themselves little with the Canon, admit the complete catalogue and several apocrypha besides.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are missing the point. In every way. First, it doesn’t say anything against Catholicism if the CC doesn’t care that there were, or are, other canons. Which IMO is the case - the Catholic Church doesn’t care that the Orthodox in the East, or the Copts, have a different canon.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter even if I am trying to “score points” or not if I am correct. If it is true they had different canons, just say so. When people deny historical fact because they think it doesn’t look good for their “side” of the argument, it makes them look desperate. This is not a hill any serious Catholic apologist is going to die on.

As it happens, I just think some people don’t understand that the canon has never been this fixed, universal thing. The situation with the Protestant canon is different in a number of ways, but when people misunderstand the canon, they do tend to put too much weight on it. It is a lot easier to understand why medieval people did not think it was so odd to have different ideas about the canon if you realize there were always local variations. Does that mean the Protestant canon was “ok”. No, but it gives more insight into the logic of the decision, which is the whole point of the OPs question, and it suggests what the real nature of the problem was.

It is Protestantism that tends to see the canon as static, fixed, and clearly delineated. I think that it is pretty ironic that Catholics here are trying to take that view to discredit Protestantism. But, maybe they really got that from the reformation era Catholics? It is certainly a departure from the early church.

Like it or not, the CC has no control over what others do. The CC defined the canon and infallibly defined it when the reformers were ‘investigating’ changes. Several ‘truths’ only became infallibly defined in the face of new, or different, views coming out.

I don’t know the OP intention on this thread, but find most of these discussions are reaction to Protestant claims that the CC ‘added’ books to the Bible, which just isn’t true.

What Protestantism views as ‘fixed’ came after receiving what was accepted for hundreds and hundreds of years. This is illogical to those who believe the scriptures remained the same, through all those generations, just as it’s illogical that reformers 1500 years later offered a ‘better’ interpretation than the very Church they received those scriptures from.

As for ‘departure’ from the early Church, the early Church didn’t have a canon. They had individual letters, and epistles, specifically written to the Church of their area. The Church evolved, and to remain one it brought those writings together, measured with ‘tradition’ to determine their ‘inspiration’.

Now it comes down to authority. The Bible came from, and through, the Church. Authority is not a product of the non-authoritative. That’s the problem with the Protestant view of the Bible as the sole authority. Christ started an authoritative Church. He neither wrote anything or ordered anything written down. He commanded the Gospel be ‘preached’.

 

[1holycatholic]

This is Trent, it does not address the Eastern differences, at all. You need to learn context. This is a response to the Protestant claims and is refuting their remaval of several books. You can’t take these documents out of context this way any more than you can take Scripture out of context this way.

I’m well aware of the Protestant rebellion. That does not alter the fact that Trent explicitly defined the existing Canon as dogma. Trent is binding on the whole Church, for that matter the previous Council of Florence enumerated the Canon and that council was binding on the whole Church as well.

You could try the Wikipedia article on the topic. It is very clear the local canons were continuously maintained.

Or the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that at the time of the schism, the Greek Church (by which it meand Eastern more generally) and was still united to the Roman Church at that time accepted extra texts:

The result of this tendency among the Greeks was that about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins

It’s a good thing that you’ve abandoned your claim about the Orientals since they were going schismatic since the 1st Council of Nicea.

The link you provided states at the beginning of the twelfth century the Greeks had the same Canon. :doh2: The schism between the East and West occurred in the middle of the eleventh century. :doh2::doh2:

Here again, it admits quite readily that the larger canon was historically normative in the East and among other groups which were once united to the Roman Church (emphasis mine):

What schismatics do is irrelevant.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m well aware of the Protestant rebellion. That does not alter the fact that Trent explicitly defined the existing Canon as dogma. Trent is binding on the whole Church, for that matter the previous Council of Florence enumerated the Canon and that council was binding on the whole Church as well.

It didn’t have to consider the East - they were no longer in communion with Rome. They did, i would say, give a minimum - it is not at all clear that it is a maximum.

It’s a good thing that you’ve abandoned your claim about the Orientals since they were going schismatic since the 1st Council of Nicea.

I haven’t abandoned anything. They did indeed have different texts, and some still do, and it is not considered an impediment to reunion. This article didn’t address the issue.

The link you provided states at the beginning of the twelfth century the Greeks had the same Canon. :doh2: The schism between the East and West occurred in the middle of the eleventh century. :doh2::doh2:

Unfortunately I cannot find the Photius text online to see if it was listed there. I think the CE wording suggest that it may have been, but I can’t say for sure. But do you really think it suddenly appeared after the schism when it wasn’t there before? That is kind of bizarre. I have never heard any Catholic scholar make that argument, though a lot of Catholic web material seems to tip-toe around it.

What schismatics do is irrelevant.

You are missing the point. They are clear this is the historic norm of the East.They do not suggest it is some post schism thing.

Do come clean - you are saying that the East actually added texts post-schism that were not previously part of their canon? Why don’t you show me some proof that is true? Or that the West ever objected to their extra texts, telling them to cease using them?

You should head over to the Eastern Catholic forum and try to maintain this position.