Where was the papal authority in 397 A.D.?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

St. Augustine mentions his criteria below for determining which scriptures ought to receive the highest place. This was written prior to the determination of the agreed upon canon. Apparently the supreme authority of the pope or his local church was not the most important factor in Augustine’s mind. He mentions that the unanimous view of all the churches ought to rule supreme. And if there was a majority of churches of the same opinion regarding the value of a scripture, this held equal weight to a minority of churches of high authority with a different opinion. It doesn’t sound like papal authority existed in any substantial form. This is as late as 397 A.D. How can that be?

QUOTE

On Christian Doctrine, In Four Books by St. Augustine

Book II Chapter 8 (Paragraph 12)--The canonical books

"...Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal."

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 19, 2003

Answers

Where was the papal authority in 397 A.D.?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 19, 2003.

Dear Mike,

Augustine was at the Council. The Pope was not. It was Augustine's place to offer guidance to the gathered bishops as to how to proceed with their assigned task. It was in that capacity that he offered his remarks on procedure. Once the canon was tentatively decided, like any decision of a Church Council it had to be ratified by the Pope, the final and supreme authority, before it could become binding on the universal Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 19, 2003.


Thanks Paul

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 19, 2003.

The Council of Trent in my opinion Mike , where the Vulgate was accepted as the text for the Bible , is the one which defined the canon in the Catholic Church.

Papal authority historically really started with the Pope who crowned Charlemagne in 800 AD, Pope < a href= "http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157b.htm"> Leo III.

For the first time in history, the Pope of Rome exercised more control over most of Europe and North Africa. Prior to this, Pope Victor 1

was the first who tried to impose his will. I am talking here about the Quartodeciman controversy.

Pope Leo 1 tried, but the overthrow of the Roman Emprire in the West in 476 and later Emperor Justinian reigned on his succesors in the 6th century.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.


Trent simply reaffirmed the canon finalized at Carthage, with no changes. The canon has been in continuous effect from 397 A.D. to the present day.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 19, 2003.


Paul, what was decided at Carthage may have been followed by the Western Church (Roman Catholic) but it was not binding on the eastern Catholics( Orthodox) since it was not an ecumenical council. Their canon is a little different than ours.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.

Dear Elpidio,

It was and is binding on all Catholics, including eastern Catholics. Whether it is binding on the Orthodox Church is not my concern, since I am not a member of that church. Other churches can use any canon they wish.

I was however unaware that the Orthodox canon is different from the Catholic canon. Could you specify the differences? Thanks.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 19, 2003.


I know they have a few more books like the prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, and psalm 151. I am doing this from the top of my head.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.

Paul

I didn't know there was a Council in 397. I thought Augustine wrote his "On Christian Doctrine" as a letter to his church at Hippo at the request of someone else, to build up the church there "to guide the reader in the understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, according to the analogy of faith." No council related to that piece of work that I was aware of before. But you are right there was a council at that time in Hippo which I wasn't aware of:

"The first council that accepted the present New Testament canon was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE); however, the acts of the council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the third Synod of Carthage.[397 CE]"

What is CE?

I assume Carthage is near Hippo, in North Africa. Is it?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 19, 2003.


Mike, CE is Jewish for Common Era (they don't like Anno Domini)

Here is the canon Paul of the Ethiopian Church .

Here is a comparison of Catholic and Ethiopian canons

Here is a < a href=" http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm">commentary on the canon.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.



Here is a commentary on the canons.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 19, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, folks.

Maybe I am not capable of doing it, but I want to make an attempt to clear up some of the confusion and uncertainty that I perceive to be mixed in with some facts in the various messages posted above.

I am not going to talk about the New Testament, as there is almost no dispute about its 27 books. But I will talk about the Old Testament, since there are the following differences, among Christians, in the number of books recognized as divinely inspired:

1. Protestant denominations -- 39 books.

2. Catholic Church -- 46 books (including the "deuterocanonical books" [Wisdom, Baruch (with the "Epistle of Jeremiah"), Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and Sirach] and the complete, rather than partial, books of Daniel and Esther).

3. most Eastern Orthodox churches -- 49 books (the 46 counted by Catholics, plus: 1 Esdras, ... the Prayer of Manasseh, ... and 3 Maccabees [plus an additional psalm])

4. Ethiopian Orthodox church's "narrower canon" -- 52 books (the 49 counted by the Eastern Orthodox plus: Enoch, ... Jubilees, and the Ezra Apocalypse [chapters 3-14 of 2 Esdras]).

Concerning the original, fourth-century enumeration of the O.T. canon by the Catholic Church ...

----- It should not be surprising that an agreed-upon O.T. canon did not exist in the first, second, or third centuries. Among the things that prevented earlier action were the danger and difficulty of travel by bishops, the more pressing need to address various heresies, and the great persecutions that the Church was undergoing.

----- A Catholic named W. Hartono (not a native speaker of English) wrote an essay on this topic. Here are some excerpts that should help us, since they touch on specific matters raised on this thread. ...
"[St.] Augustine ... listed 44 books which agreed with today's Catholic Old Testament of 46 books. The difference in total number [46 vs. 44] is because he combined Lamentations [with] Baruch ... [and] with Jeremiah.
"In 382 Pope Damasus approved [of this same] list at [the] Council of Rome.
"[The same list] was then [affirmed] at [the] Council in Hippo (Augustine's see) in 393 and subsequently reaffirmed at [the] third Council of Carthage ... in 397.
"The fourth council of Carthage in 419 again confirmed the same list of Old Testament. The same councils also declared the canon of [the] New Testament [to consist of] 27 books."

----- It is true that the "councils" mentioned above (Rome, Hippo, Carthage) were regional, rather than ecumenical, councils. However, the pope used his "ordinary magisterium" in 382 to approve of the canon, and Catholics owe their assent to all papal teachings, even when not pronounced as solemn definitions.

----- In none of the ecumenical councils between 400 and 1500 A.D., was it deemed necessary to debate the contents of the O.T. canon. The reason for this is that the O.T. canon that was approved late in the 4th century became an infallible teaching of the "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium" of the Church. [If you are not familiar with this term or with the fact that there are other forms of infallibility besides papal "ex cathedra" statements, please review the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" of the Second Vatican Council.]

----- When the Council of Trent, in the mid-1500s, solemnly declared the O.T. canon, it was simply reaffirming what had already been taught infallibly (in an "ordinary and universal" way by the popes and Catholic bishops) for over a millennium. In fact, we would still be following the 4th-century canon today -- without there having been any solemn declaration at an ecumenical council -- if there had been no 16th-century revolt that dropped seven O.T. books.

God bless you.
John
PS: The full Hartono essay is at http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/bible01.htm

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.


Hi guys, just stumbled into this site. It seems that much debate is over the books of the old covenant. Who better an authority on that than those who originally possesed the oracles of God. The Jewish elders met and confirmed in A.D 90(council at Jamina) the Old Testament without the apocrypha. Do we need a papal authority? Jeremiah delivered a message years ago that is for believers today. Jeremiah 31:33-34. The living word Yeshua is with us and can live in us if we but posses faith. John 1:14 & Revelation 3:20

-- Brian C. Hedrick (plesumwo@buggs.net), October 01, 2003.

Yes Brian, we do indeed need Papal authority, for Papal authority is Christ's authority. Jewish elders have no authority whatsoever over the contents of the Christian Bible. Who better an authority than those through whom the Holy Spirit defined the canon of Scripture? Did the Jewish elders approve Matthew? John? Romans? Revelation? It was the Holy Catholic Church alone who defined the canon of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You accept their infallible pronouncement on the books of the New Testament. So how can you challenge the very same authority regarding the books of the Old Testament? Either the Church had authority to define the canon of scripture, or it didn't. If it did, then all 73 books of the Holy Bible must be accepted as divinely inspired. If it didn't, if the Church made seven mistakes in selecting the inspired texts of the canon, then we have no way of knowing whether ANY of the books of the Bible are truly divinely inspired.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 01, 2003.

Brian,

You said, Do we need a papal authority? Jeremiah delivered a message years ago that is for believers today

You admit that you need Jeremiah's authority to know and speak authoritatively yourself, as you quote Jeremiah 31:33-34. Could it be that we need that same ability today? How can the people of God be reproved, how can their disputes be settled, without a living authority as the Old Testament times had Jeremiah and others Jewish elders. What was in seed form in the Old Testament is even more present in the New Covenant. How much harder is it for us to understand and live out God's will for us as described in Paul's deep and complex Letter to the Romans, the full revelation through Christ, as compared to the previous times when the plain book of Leviticus was the rule? We need papal authority more than ever now.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ