Canonization of Scriptures

[calluna]

If you guys don't mind me backing up to the OP for a sec: Why is the question Do You Trust The Catholic Papacy In The Canonization Of Scriptures? Isn't the question more like Do You Trust The Holy Spirit In The Canonization Of Scriptures? The Holy Spirit is a pretty trustworthy person. I know that it rubs against the grain of some people that the Catholic Church was God's instrument in canonizing the scriptures. But ultimately that canonization was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So isnt that the REAL question?

For one thing, Protestants (real ones) do not recognise the Holy Spirit in the RCC. Indeed, they account it one of God's enemies. It is too often forgotten that the Reformers, to a man, described the Vatican as 'Antichrist' in one way or another.

Another amazing, frequent error made by Catholics is that Protestants do not reckon that the RCC chose the correct canon. Protestants make their own choices, and the astonishing thing, at first sight, is that they nearly all make the same choice. But in truth, the Scriptures select themselves; the difference between chalk and cheese is as nothing compared to the Scripture and everything else written thereafter until the likes of The Pilgrim's Progress, which is of course packed to the gills with Bible verses, and was the runaway best-seller of its day after the Bible. Catholicism has never produced anything of that sort. If Catholics are grateful that they can read a Bible, they should acknowledge the courage, skill, dedication and sheer hard work of the folk who taught the common people to read, translated the Bible, and forced the Reformation. The Holy Spirit was with them, not with those who opposed them in every way.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I know that it rubs against the grain of some people that the Catholic Church was God's instrument in canonizing the scriptures.

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"






.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

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

That is totally outside the realm of reality.

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

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

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.

Well, thats all I needed to hear from you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is totally outside the realm of reality.

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

Yes, the CATHOLIC Council of Trent in the 16th Century is when the CATHOLIC CHURCH officially acknowledged the canon of books, but I agree with history and with St. Augustine that the HOLY SPIRIT formed the canon of books, it's just that eventually, almost all denominations have officially embraced it; the RCC did that in the 16th century.

If you are referring to the regional conferneces of the very late 4th and early 5th centuries, there's nothing to suggest that they were RCC councils and nothing to suggest that they are the cause of the books we now acknowledge as Scripture, as history reveals, that embrace came earlier than any - ANY - meeting of any - ANY - denomination. Yours included.





.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

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.

Whenever you see Catholics referring to the Roman Catholic Church we are only referriing to the Roman Rite within the Church, not the Church itself. I know that you already know this, so all you are doing is perpetuating false information because it is the only was to argue in favor of your error.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

Whenever you see Catholics referring to the Roman Catholic Church we are only referriing to the Roman Rite within the Church, not the Church itself. I know that you already know this, so all you are doing is perpetuating false information because it is the only was to argue in favor of your error.

Do you expect the Orthodox to ever follow the Roman Rites of the RCC?

 

[calluna]

What is RCC? The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.

But is it the catholic church? The RCC now indicates that those 'properly baptised' have a right to be called Christians, and most people would suppose that the RCC reckons such persons to be members of the catholic church. So even those who believe the RCC to be a Christian church may legitimately refer to the RCC as 'the RCC'. For 500 years, Anglican bishops and others have referred to the RCC as 'the Church of Rome' or 'Rome' for short, and it hardly seems appropriate to find offense at this now.

Those who believe that RC teaching precludes Christian faith, thereby precluding the use of the name 'church', would surely be perfectly justified in describing the RCC as 'the Vatican sect' or 'the Vatican cult'. It's not at all a question of giving unnecessary, deliberate offense here, but of following one's conscience and expressing one's meaning accurately. For some Catholics and others, it's really a question of whether one is going to agree to freedom of expression, or not.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Do you expect the Orthodox to ever follow the Roman Rites of the RCC?

No, and it would not be neccessary. From a Catholic POV, if they ever reunified with Rome they would likely have their own rites, as do Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and all the other Catholics besides Roman Catholics.

Remember one thing: You live in America where the Roman Rite is predominant. It is not so in other countries. Protestants often have an American-centric view of these things which leads to mistakes.

 

[SummaScriptura]

No, and it would not be neccessary. From a Catholic POV, if they ever reunified with Rome they would likely have their own rites, as do Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and all the other Catholics besides Roman Catholics.<snip>

So, are you saying the Orthodox are Catholics?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

So, are you saying the Orthodox are Catholics?

Despite what you read in these forums, within the dialouge which has been taking place between the upper eschelons of the Vatican and the EO's for years, most doctrinal differences have been ironed out. The Papacy is the one big remaining obstacle. But other than that, our beliefs are essentially the same.

But I was responding to LittleLambs question: "Do you expect the Orthodox to ever follow the Roman Rites of the RCC?". No, I would not expect that and it would not be neccessary. Again from a Catholic POV, if they ever reunified with Rome they would likely have their own rites, as do Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and all the other Catholics besides Roman Catholics.

 

[SummaScriptura]

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.

Whenever you see Catholics referring to the Roman Catholic Church we are only referriing to the Roman Rite within the Church, not the Church itself. I know that you already know this, so all you are doing is perpetuating false information because it is the only was to argue in favor of your error.

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

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

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

Section 838 of the Catechism states:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (LG15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (UR3). With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.).

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Section 838 of the Catechism states:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (LG15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (UR3).
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.).

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Greetings.
So the only perfect communion is thru Roman Catholicism? Sorry, but I reject that silly notion.......

LLOJ goes to check his in-box!!!

 

[SummaScriptura]

Greetings.
So the only perfect communion is thru Roman Catholicism? Sorry, but I reject that <snip>

Wow, I actually agree with LLOJ on something.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Greetings.
So the only perfect communion is thru Roman Catholicism? Sorry, but I reject that silly notion.........

But you accept the notion that it can be obtained through Sola Scriptura, a doctrine which is directly responsible for the fragmentation of protestantism and the creation of thousands of denominations?

Now THAT is what is really silly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But you accept the notion that it can be obtained through Sola Scriptura, a doctrine which is directly responsible for the fragmentation of protestantism and the creation of thousands of denominations?

Now THAT is what is really silly.

Well then, I suppose we are both just silly

 

[calluna]

But you accept the notion that it can be obtained through Sola Scriptura, a doctrine which is directly responsible for the fragmentation of protestantism and the creation of thousands of denominations?

Now THAT is what is really silly.

Is it to be understood that Catholicism is not valued as having absolute veracity or value as God's instrument, but exists only to displace Bible-based faith?

Can it be proved that the existence of separate denominations of Protestantism is due to reliance on the Bible as the source of authority?

 

[billwald]

The Roman Catholic Church accepted the existing canon when it split from the Orthodox Catholic Church so question is moot.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Tu Es Petrus, I've seen this list before. It looks pretty good, but we should dump the first one about slaying the innocents. Reading the the Wisdom of Solomon one finds it is referring to the slaying of innocent Hebrew children in the land of Egypt at the time of the birth of Moses.

On a related note, I think it would be cool if we could all colaborate somewhere on this forum and really nail down all the biblical cross-references we can find to the books incorrectly referred to as "apocrypha". Working out a good cross-reference system could be a good first step in re-integrating those books use for some of us in the West who've lately rediscovered those books' worth and their rightful place amongst the books of the Church.

Okay then, here it is, please contribute!
Click Here

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Despite what you read in these forums, within the dialouge which has been taking place between the upper eschelons of the Vatican and the EO's for years, most doctrinal differences have been ironed out. The Papacy is the one big remaining obstacle. But other than that, our beliefs are essentially the same.

But I was responding to LittleLambs question: "Do you expect the Orthodox to ever follow the Roman Rites of the RCC?". No, I would not expect that and it would not be neccessary. Again from a Catholic POV, if they ever reunified with Rome they would likely have their own rites, as do Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and all the other Catholics besides Roman Catholics.

Tu Es Petrus is correct. Prior to the schism of 1054, the Divine Liturgy had different "cultural flavorings" depending on where it was celebrated. It was the same faith, same doctrine, just different expressions of it. If the RCC and EOC were to re-unite (which I pray they do) this would be the case. Even within the respective churches today you will see different "cultural flavorings" depending on where the Liturgy is celebrated.

For example, if you walk into an Orthodox Church in the U.S. there is a high probability that you will see pews. If you walk into an Orthodox Church in Russia you will not see pews. Pews are an American innovation for Orthodoxy. Does this change the faith or the doctrine? No. It's just a cultural expression.

Although we still have quite a few issues to iron out between the two churches, I pray one day we can work them out and be reunited again. (After all, who wouldn't want a cannoli and a gyro at the same church fair? )