Posted on 12/18/2007 1:52:09 PM PST by NYer
I agree the term wrote the Bible is unfortunate. It should say that the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit agreed to the Canon of Scripture which was universally taught and held by most Christians. This was done in response to heresies that were arising at the time. It also settled which books were not Canonical.
And by Church I mean the undivided Church both Eastern and Western.
It certainly was hubris that led to the Protestant reformation, but not on the part of the Catholic Church.
WHy do they always refer to Bede as “The Venerable” rather than as Saint Bede?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
It was this hubris that led to the Protestant reformation.The Hubris of the soi-disant 'reformers' led to their burning many at the stake, torturing many more and leading countless souls into heresy, apostacy and hell.
I was told that Catholic is of the greek root kat-holike meaning “of the whole”. I thought that was interesting.
the lectionary is on a three-year cycle: A, B, C
God bless you all.
The essence of what Mr. Addison writes is correct. Christ founded a Church and the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, canonized the scriptures. Unfortunately, most of the Protestant responses to the article lacked any intellectual substance and no research at all. I will use JND Kelly and Henry Chadwick, both Church History Scholars who are both non Catholic (they are both Anglicans) to demonstrate the formation of the Biblical Canon was related to the authority of the Church and formed by the Catholic Church. First, JND Kelly, in his book “Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 53-54” provides solid evidence that the Dueterocanonicals were recognized as the Canonical Old Testament in the early Church. Kelly writes:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary”
Henry Chadwick, the Anglican Church History Scholar and Professor at Oxford and Cambridge, writes in his book The Early Church (Revised Edition, 1993, pp. 38-44) about the formation of the canon. Chadwick points out how the Gnostic Marcion’s attack on the Old Testament and acceptance of only Luke’s Gospel and certain Pauline epistles forced the Church to form the biblical canon. Chadwick points out the Marcion was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144. Warren Carroll, (the Catholic Historian) in his work “The Founding of Christendom Vol. 1 p. 460 writes “Marcion went away angry and rebellious. In July 144 he established his own church, the first to be set up in defiance of the Pope. There would be many more.”
To defend the orthodox Catholic faith, Chadwick points out that the Ministry and the Bible were the two weapons used to defeat the Gnostics such as Marcion. In response to the question where could the 2nd century Church find reliable evidence of what the Apostles taught, Chadwick points out that Ignatius of Antioch used the authority of the local Bishop, without whom the life giving sacraments could not be administered. He also notes that a more permanent justification of ministerial authority came from the Church of Rome. Chadwick cites 1 Clement and Irenaueus to make his point about apostolic succession being the important source to defeat the Gnostic sects. Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“Against any heretical claim to possess secret traditions of what Jesus had told the apostles in the forty days after the resurrection, there was a clear argument that the apostles Peter and Paul could not have failed to impart such doctrines to those whom they had set over the Churches, and that by the line of accredited teachers in those Churches of apostolic foundation no such heretical notions had been transmitted. The succession argument carried the implication that the teaching given by the contemporary bishop of say, Rome or Antioch was in all respects identical with that of the apostles. This was important, for two reasons. In the first place, the faithful were thereby in some sense assured that revelation was not only knowable by a retrospective historical knowledge derived from either the apostles occasional writings or anecdotal gossip, but had in the bishops contemporary authority, able and authorized to speak God’s word in the present. In the second place, it enabled defenders of orthodoxy, especially Irenaeus of Lyons, to oppose the proliferating Gnostic sects, none of which agreed with one another and all of which were continually modifying their views, the concept of the monolithic church, universally extended in space and with unbroken continuity in time, unanimous in its possession of an immutable revelation”
The authority of the Church would thus become important in formulating the Canon. Again, Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“ The second weapon of the orthodox defense was the gradual formation of the New Testament canon. In the first century, the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in oral traditions, as in apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.”
Chadwick notes that oral tradition was viewed as an authority that had not yet been merged into a written document (i.e. the Scripture). However, he notes that the Maricion and other Gnostic controversies provided an impetus for the Church to recognize which written documents contained authentic apostolic tradition. Thus, Justin Martyr, who died circa 155 AD provided an orthodox Church father who attested to MT, MK, and LK. These gospels seemed to be recognized much earlier than John, which was met with resistance. It wasn’t until Irena us (185 AD) that John became recognized . Chadwick points out that “strict application of apostolic authority” by the Church of Rome led to the exclusion of the book of Hebrews., which would not be admitted until the 4th century. Chadwick cites the Muratorian fragment, written in 200 AD as the first canonical list of the early Church, which was published by the Church of Rome. The Muratorian fragment lists 23 of the 27 books in the NT (1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James are not listed). In addition, he lists the Revelation of John, but states it should not be read in Church.
Over the next 200 years, the formation of the Canon would continue. In his history of the Church Eusebius, written between 300 and 325 AD, he gives us a clear picture of the state of the Biblical canon. He points out that Peter’s first epistle, in which Mark is mentioned, was composed in Rome itself and Peter indicates this himself referring to Rome figuratively as Babylon. Thus, Eusebius indicates that 1 Peter is agreed upon while 2 Peter is not canonical, but it is studies with other scriptures. The fourteen of Paul are obvious and certain, but he notes that Hebrews is disputed saying that it was rejected by the Church at Rome as not being Paul. Eusebius goes on to point out that the 4 gospels should be put in first place, followed by the Acts of the Apostles then the epistles of Paul, 1 John and then 1 Peter. After those, if it is desirable, then perhaps Revelations can be put in.
However, he then goes on to show that there are several disputed books. He lists James, Jude, and once again 2 Peter. He also points out that 2 John and 3 John are disputed. Finally, he goes back and points out that Revelations (the Apocalypse of John) are rejected by some, while others include it as canonical. In summary, Eusebius’s account gives us a clear picture that the New Testament canon was not completely formed by 325 AD.
Of course, over the next 75 years the process was completed.. St. Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter lists the 27 New Testament books and 40 of the 46 Old Testament books that would be in the Catholic Canon (Baruch was included, the other 6 deuterocanonical books are admitted there use as devotional reading. The Council in Rome in 382 led by Pope Damasus, along with St. Jerome, listed the 46 books of the OT and 27 NT that are in the Catholic Bible today. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397 AD, respectively are consistent with Rome in 382. The Council of Trent, (1534 to 1565), in response to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, reaffirmed the Catholic Canon of the 4th century.. Thus, it is accurate to state that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, protected and defended the orthodox Catholic faith and canonized the scriptures that were in conformity with apostolic tradition.
Have a blessed Advent and Merry Christmas
Hey, I haven’t posted in a while and my paragraph wraps are not up to speed. I apologize.
Regards
Lollard Bibles were commonly confiscated from people suspected of being heretic and given to people know not to be. Why do you assume that a person who reads only English cannot be deceived by a bad translation, translation itself being a matter of interpretation, not just simple transliteration?
How do you know who wrote these books, since the text does not name the author? We also do not know the time nor the place nor the occasion for their writing, nor their authority, save by testimony of the Church. You may rightly question only what is meant by the Church and when or where they chose to canonize these Scriptures. Given the content of theser writings is likely that they were, as you say, Torah observant Jews—save “Luke-Acts,”—but then we must ask, for what purpose except to tell us what is meant by Torah.
Have you seen my pictures of Rome?
Why would you be “unsure that it is true”?
Have you gone to Mass every Sunday for 3 years to find out?
The Sunday Masses are in a three year cycle—years A,B, and C, . In addition, in the daily Masses, the Scriptures are in a 2-year cycle—Year I and Year II. The Sacred Scriptures, in the 3-year Sunday cycles and the 2-year daily cycles, are thoroughly covered.
In addition, the readings of the Sunday Masses and the daily Masses are matched thematically. They are not loosely thrown together. For this reason, many Catholics are often very familiar with Scriptural texts and phrases, not any more by chapter and verse, than also by similarity of theme.
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 107 Anno Domini
Pope St. Innocent I closed the 73 book Canon of the Bible in 405 AD.
“Why do you assume that a person who reads only English cannot be deceived by a bad translation’
The lollard bibles were purchased and burned by the Church. People can be, and were, deceived by bad translations, including those by the Church. You make my point for me. The Church felt THEY had the right to say what the proper translation was and forced their opinion on individuals at the point of the sword.
“LOL!!! I can’t think of ONE authentic Catholic church father listed in the scriptures. I suppose they could try to claim Peter, but that’s 2 books out of 66. :O)”
Being the Pharisee that I am, and in all honesty the first among sinners, I am sooooooooooooooooooooo glad the uneducated character who wrote this foolish article is definitely NOT Orthodox! One would think that the Latins would be a little more careful with what goes out with the approval of that particular church. It would appear otherwise. Did you notice his comment about an “imprimatur”? I looked for one on the site and couldn’t find it, which I suppose is cause for some encouragement. What is unfortunate is that this site is apparently very widely read among lay Latins and if this and other articles online are any indication, it fosters a distorted picture not only of Church history, but also of Latin theology too.
A Blessed Feast of the Nativity to you and yours, HD!
“And by Church I mean the undivided Church both Eastern and Western.”
Of course YOU and most of the other Latins here know that (truth be told, the FR Latin crowd is pretty well catechized and even better read!), but the character who wrote this piece, and others on the site, apparently doesn’t. And if he doesn’t know these things, why is he publishing under the “omophorion” of the Latin Church and teaching The Faith to catechumens?
ping to myself to get my heart ready for Christmas
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.