Canonization of Scriptures

It should also be noted that even today within the Orthodox Church there is a Western Rite. You can learn more about it here if you're interested:

http://www.westernorthodox.com/

SummaScriptura said:

Do you believe the Orthodox can be properly called "Catholics"?

Click to expand...

Uh, 'scuse me, its a Greek word !!

Thekla said:

Uh, 'scuse me, its a Greek word !!

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Greek still "wows" me the more I study on it.
I would guess Reve 9:15 is the fulfillment of Zech 13:9 but what is interesting concerning the greek word #615 is the prefix "apo" before it.
This would almost appear to say "from kill"?

Zech 13:9 And I bring the third in fire and I refine them as to refine of the silver and I test them as to test of the gold. He, he shall call in name of me and I shall answer him I say people of Me and he, he shall say YHWH, Elohiym of me.

Reve 9:15 and were loosed the four Messengers, the ones having been made ready into the Hour and Day and Month and Year, that they may be killing/apo-kteinwsin <615> (5725) the third of the men.

615. apokteino ap-ok-ti'-no from 575 and kteino (to slay); to kill outright; figuratively, to destroy:--put to death, kill, slay.
575. apo apo' a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):--(X here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

Thekla said:

Uh, 'scuse me, its a Greek word !!

Click to expand...

Strange thing is, I feel more catholic in outlook than many who profess being Catholic!

Tu Es Petrus said:

Josiah said:

There's zero evidence that the RCC had anything whatsoever to do with it.


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. And the RCC had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. In fact, there's zero evidence that it even existed at this time.

Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

At this point, we have 20 of the books in place. And the Catholic Church had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it; in fact, there's no evidence it even existed.


Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. And the Catholic Church had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nothing at all.


Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. And the RCC had NOTHING to do with.



Early Meetings:


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod, it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing the approved lectionary books. It's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It's the now familiar 27.

Since then, hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings of various types have confirmed this consensus that Christians developed and which later these councils acknowledged. The RCC did this at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century.



Some words from St. Augustine regarding the Canon:

Augustine (352-430): "Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.



A note about the DEUTEROcanonical OT books:

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent"



.

Click to expand...

You mention Catholic Councils in you very next post, so you contradict yourself.

Click to expand...

Yes, the CATHOLIC Council of Trent in the 16th Century officially embraced the canon of books for the CATHOLIC CHURCH. But it didn't form the canon, that was done many centuries earlier - and the CATHOLIC CHURCH had nothing whatsoever to do with that. Not a thing.

Almost every name you quoted are saints or doctors of the Church. LOL. You quoted a laundry list of Catholics and then say Catholics had nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

1. There's ZERO evidence that ANY of them were members of the Catholic Church. They were all catholics (little "c") but then all Christians are.

2. I never suggested that PEOPLE had nothing to do with it, I said the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. At least not until the 16th century.





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Yes, the CATHOLIC Council of Trent in the 16th Century officially embraced the canon of books for the CATHOLIC CHURCH. But it didn't form the canon, that was done many centuries earlier - and the CATHOLIC CHURCH had nothing whatsoever to do with that. Not a thing.




1. There's ZERO evidence that ANY of them were members of the Catholic Church. They were all catholics (little "c") but then all Christians are.

...

Click to expand...

Huh? ZERO evidence that ANY of them were members of the Catholic Church? Have you read Ignatius' letters? You know. The part where he says, "where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

MrStain said:

The part where he says, "where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Click to expand...

It's finding Jesus Christ that's the hard part. In history, or elsewhere.

"......St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. The New Testament portion bears the marks of Jerome's views. St. Jerome, always prepossessed in favour of Oriental positions in matters Biblical, exerted then a happy influence in regard to the New Testament; if he attempted to place any Eastern restriction upon the Canon of the Old Testament his effort failed of any effect. The title of the decree--"Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat"--proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their final blow. "Rome had spoken, and the nations of the West had heard" (Zahn). The works of the Latin Fathers of the period--Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardina, Philaster of Brescia--manifest the changed attitude toward Hebrews, James, Jude, II Peter, and III John.

Fixation in the African and Gallican Churches

It was some little time before the African Church perfectly adjusted its New Testament to the Damasan Canon. Optatus of Mileve (370-85) does not used Hebrews. St. Augustine, while himself receiving the integral Canon, acknowledged that many contested this Epistle. But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor's view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals--Hippo, Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419--found it necessary to formulate catalogues. The introduction of Hebrews was an especial crux, and a reflection of this is found in the first Carthage list, where the much vexed Epistle, though styled of St. Paul, is still numbered separately from the time-consecrated group of thirteen. The catalogues of Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon of the present. In Gaul some doubts lingered for a time, as we find Pope Innocent I, in 405, sending a list of the Sacred Books to one of its bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.
So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the New Testament. In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approximate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the New Testament was definitely fixed, and the discussion closed....."

source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

MrStain said:

[/size]

Huh? ZERO evidence that ANY of them were members of the Catholic Church? Have you read Ignatius' letters? You know. The part where he says, "where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Click to expand...

1. Actually, he wrote, "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." And I ENTIRELY and passionately agree with him.


2. Read the history. There is ZERO evidence that the CATHOLIC CHURCH had anything whatsoever to do with the collection of Scriptures as the canon. Nothing whatsoever (nor any other denomination). The first time ANY denomination did ANYTHING was simply to embrace the collected that existed as the approved books for the Sunday lectionary and by then, the canon of books already existed (well, Revelation of John would remain a bit of a question for some time after that). The CATHOLIC CHURCH officially embraced the collection in the 16th century at the Council of Trent - and then only for it and it itself alone. Nearly all denominations have also officially embraced the canon of books (mine did it in 1847). But for a denomination to officially embrace a canon is a whole other issue than for the collection of that canon.

3. There is ZERO evidence that ANY of the men I quoted were Catholics. In fact, in all but maybe 1 or 2 cases, there's zero evidence that any denomination even existed in their time, much less the specific one which is today The Catholic Church. They are Christians (and thus catholics, little "c") but zero evidence that they were Catholics.


Fact is, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the canonization of Scripture. History shows this, St. Augustine agreed, my priest agreed and so do I.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

...... Read the history. There is ZERO evidence that the CATHOLIC CHURCH had anything whatsoever to do with the collection of Scriptures as the canon.....

Click to expand...

"......St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. The New Testament portion bears the marks of Jerome's views. St. Jerome, always prepossessed in favour of Oriental positions in matters Biblical, exerted then a happy influence in regard to the New Testament; if he attempted to place any Eastern restriction upon the Canon of the Old Testament his effort failed of any effect. The title of the decree--"Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat"--proves that the council drew up a list of apocryphal as well as authentic Scriptures. The Shepherd and the false Apocalypse of Peter now received their final blow. "Rome had spoken, and the nations of the West had heard" (Zahn). The works of the Latin Fathers of the period--Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardina, Philaster of Brescia--manifest the changed attitude toward Hebrews, James, Jude, II Peter, and III John.

Fixation in the African and Gallican Churches

It was some little time before the African Church perfectly adjusted its New Testament to the Damasan Canon. Optatus of Mileve (370-85) does not used Hebrews. St. Augustine, while himself receiving the integral Canon, acknowledged that many contested this Epistle. But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor's view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals--Hippo, Carthage, in 393; Third of Carthage in 397; Carthage in 419--found it necessary to formulate catalogues. The introduction of Hebrews was an especial crux, and a reflection of this is found in the first Carthage list, where the much vexed Epistle, though styled of St. Paul, is still numbered separately from the time-consecrated group of thirteen. The catalogues of Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon of the present. In Gaul some doubts lingered for a time, as we find Pope Innocent I, in 405, sending a list of the Sacred Books to one of its bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.
So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the New Testament. In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approximate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the New Testament was definitely fixed, and the discussion closed....."

source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

It is God who has preserved His word. So therefore who ever God has chosen to put what was already written together is fine with me. Because it is not the men I trust but God Himself.

the publisher?

Kristos said:

the publisher?

Click to expand...

Pen and ink please.........

Reve 1:11 saying "which thou are beholding write! into a scroll and send! to the seven Out-Calleds/ekklhsiaiV <1577>. Into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"

CaliforniaJosiah said:

1. Actually, he wrote, "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." And I ENTIRELY and passionately agree with him.


2. Read the history. There is ZERO evidence that the CATHOLIC CHURCH had anything whatsoever to do with the collection of Scriptures as the canon. Nothing whatsoever (nor any other denomination). The first time ANY denomination did ANYTHING was simply to embrace the collected that existed as the approved books for the Sunday lectionary and by then, the canon of books already existed (well, Revelation of John would remain a bit of a question for some time after that). The CATHOLIC CHURCH officially embraced the collection in the 16th century at the Council of Trent - and then only for it and it itself alone. Nearly all denominations have also officially embraced the canon of books (mine did it in 1847). But for a denomination to officially embrace a canon is a whole other issue than for the collection of that canon.

3. There is ZERO evidence that ANY of the men I quoted were Catholics. In fact, in all but maybe 1 or 2 cases, there's zero evidence that any denomination even existed in their time, much less the specific one which is today The Catholic Church. They are Christians (and thus catholics, little "c") but zero evidence that they were Catholics.


Fact is, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the canonization of Scripture. History shows this, St. Augustine agreed, my priest agreed and so do I.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Click to expand...

I have read the history.

This belief of yours that they were not Catholic is perplexing to me. Especially since you are quoting men who teach Catholic doctrines and who are clearly recognized as Catholic in history. Come on. Ignatius did not say, "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the BAPTIST or LUTHERAN church." Since the Churches foundation it has been Catholic. Scripture and history attests to the fact.

Ya, ya. I know you're just going to say it was "small c" catholic which is not the same as "BIG C" Catholic. That is just silly. Have you never heard of a descriptive term becoming a formal name for a person or organization over time? Smith & Tanner come to mind. I'm sure there are many more. Likewise, the term catholic rapidly became the descriptive name of the Church of Jesus i.e. Catholic. Here's some more history for you on top of Ignatius' quote:

"When finally [Polycarp] had finished his prayer, in which he remembered everyone with whom he had ever been acquainted, the small and the great, the reknowned and the unknown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world..." - The Martyrdom of Saint Polycapt (AD 155)

"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polucarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna." - The Martyrdom of Saint Polycapt (AD 155)

"From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just... We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin an in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith..." - St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis (AD 202)

"For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another." - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to Florentius Pupianus (AD 254)

"In addition to this pious belief in regard to the Father and the Son, we confess, as the divine writings teach us, one Holy Spirit, who moved both the holy men of the Old Testament and the divine teachers of that styled the New. And in one only Catholic Church, that which is Apostolic." - Alexander of Alexandria, Encyclical to another Bishop Alexander and Non-Egyptian Bishops (AD 324)

MamaZ said:

It is God who has preserved His word. So therefore who ever God has chosen to put what was already written together is fine with me. Because it is not the men I trust but God Himself.

Click to expand...

I have to agree

MrStain said:

I have read the history.

This belief of yours that they were not Catholic is perplexing to me. Especially since you are quoting men who teach Catholic doctrines and who are clearly recognized as Catholic in history. Come on. Ignatius did not say, "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the BAPTIST or LUTHERAN church." Since the Churches foundation it has been Catholic. Scripture and history attests to the fact.

Click to expand...

Neither is true. History is not what happened- it is basic to remember that. History is the record written by the best bullies, and never by the best. Scripture repeatedly discounts history entirely, by warning about false teachers, who will have a great following. Jesus warned to judge people by their fruits, and that discounts a very great following. One can discover heresy in every author from 'Clement' to the Renaissance, so we might reasonably conclude that only heretics were tolerated after the canon was completed and established with the true church.

MrStain said:

Josiah said:

There's zero evidence that the RCC had anything whatsoever to do with it.


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. And the RCC had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. In fact, there's zero evidence that it even existed at this time.

Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

At this point, we have 20 of the books in place. And the Catholic Church had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it; in fact, there's no evidence it even existed.


Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. And the Catholic Church had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nothing at all.


Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. And the RCC had NOTHING to do with.



Early Meetings:


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod, it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing the approved lectionary books. It's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It's the now familiar 27.

Since then, hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings of various types have confirmed this consensus that Christians developed and which later these councils acknowledged. The RCC did this at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century.



Some words from St. Augustine regarding the Canon:

Augustine (352-430): "Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.



A note about the DEUTEROcanonical OT books:

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent"



.​

Click to expand...

I have read the history.

Click to expand...

Good. Then you know that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the collection of the canon of books....

This belief of yours that they were not Catholic is perplexing to me. Especially since you are quoting men who teach Catholic doctrines and who are clearly recognized as Catholic in history. Come on. Ignatius did not say, "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the BAPTIST or LUTHERAN church." Since the Churches foundation it has been Catholic.

Click to expand...

1. With the POSSIBLE exception of St. Augustine, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the collection of the canon of books, none of the persons I quoted was Catholic. They were CHRISTIANS, and thus "catholic" but there's zero evidence that any of them was institutionally Catholic (ie officially registered in a congregation formally affiliated with the Catholic Church) or doctrinally Catholic (ie formally ascribed to the 2865 points of the Catholic denomination).

2. Ignatius NEVER wrote, "Where Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." Nope. What he wrote is "Where Jesus Christ is present, there is the catholic church." Exactly! Just as He promised. Just as Protestants believe.

3. There is ZERO evidence that all Christians in the First Century formally and docilicly accepted the 2,865 points of Catholicism. I think you know that. So, EVEN IF you had evidence that some denomination existed in the First Century, it was not the Catholic Church (by theology, anyway).

To your snippets, "catholic" was a very common and popular ADJECTIVE meaning "universal, whole, general, all-embracing." I realize that at some point, some in the west began to use it in a secondary sense of a proper noun to describe an denominational institution largely in distinction to the Eastern church, but it is wrong to apply this much later secondary definition to uses centuries earlier. To make it simply for you, let's say a commentator speaks of a race car and calls it "awesome!" 300 years later, Toyota comes out with a sports car with the moniker of "Awesome." It would be wrong at that point to quote the person 300 years earlier to state, "Awesome won that race!"


Now, back to the topic of this thread. What evidence is there that the Catholic Church collected the books we now regard as the Canon? History, St. Augustine and my Catholic priest all agree it had nothing to do with it. God did. The RCC - like nearly every other denomination - officially EMBRACED it (the RCC at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century) but that's an entirely different issue.






.

What is RCC? The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. That is where you err. Only non-Catholics call the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

You don't know many Catholics . The web pages of almost all of the dioceses in my state all proclaim to be "Roman Catholic" . The catholic group in the town of my current residence calls itself on its brick to be a "Roman Catholic Church" . Looking at the websites other towns in my area , most have "Roman Catholic Church" while none say that they are anything else .

If you are correct , catholics hire only noncatholics for their advertisements - and don't check for accuracy .

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Good. Then you know that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the collection of the canon of books....








To your snippets, "catholic" was a very common and popular ADJECTIVE meaning "universal, whole, general, all-embracing." I realize that at some point, some in the west began to use it in a secondary sense of a proper noun to describe an denominational institution largely in distinction to the Eastern church, but it is wrong to apply this much later secondary definition to uses centuries earlier.

Now, back to the topic of this thread. What evidence is there that the Catholic Church collected the books we now regard as the Canon? History, St. Augustine and my Catholic priest all agree it had nothing to do with it. God did. The RCC - like nearly every other denomination - officially EMBRACED it (the RCC at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century) but that's an entirely different issue.






.

Click to expand...

LOL !

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954


History of the Christian Church Philip Schaff Protestant History Scholar


From Chaper 10 Schaff wrote--

The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension, and solemnly inaugurated on the first Christian Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church. It appears in the New Testament under different names, descriptive of its various functions:—the "ministry of the word," "of the Spirit," "of righteousness," "of reconciliation." It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the authority of Christ. The ministers of the gospel are, in an eminent sense, servants of God, and, as such, servants of the churches in the noble spirit of self-denying love according to the example of Christ, for the eternal salvation of the souls intrusted to their charge. They are called—not exclusively, but emphatically—the light of the world, the salt of the earth, fellow-workers with God, stewards of the mysteries of God, ambassadors for Christ.


From the beginning of Chapter 4--41. Progress in Consolidation.
In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.

Chapter 4 next paragraph.

42. Clergy and Laity.

The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church.

Protestan Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period.



"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)




​

Can we just put Trento's post to a "Sticky" on this board. Would save a lot of bandwidth from the cutting and pasting of the same thing over and over again in LARGE and COLORFUL FONTS

LLOJ hopes his "bug-eyes" get back to normal soon