I thank you for your post, Fr_Chuck. I have no complaints with anything you said, but thought it might be helpful for those who may not be terribly familiar with this terrain to expand a little bit on some of the points you've called to our attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fr_Chuck
Most Christian Scholars feel that even the books not included, have good value are are valid christian writings but lack any teaching or items of values or duplicate many things from other books.
I certainly agree about the importance of a great many non-canonical books. The book of Enoch, for example: So far as I can tell, only the Ethiopian Orthodox canon has retained Enoch. And yet it was part of many Christian canons for centuries. And, perhaps even more importantly, it was part of the canon that was familiar to many first century Jews--including those first century Jews who went on to write the books of the NT. In fact, the NT quotes from Enoch. If we refuse to read, let alone study, Enoch because it isn't in the canon as we have it today, we are shortchanging our ability to understand the NT as well as we otherwise might.
Quote:
I would suggest one look at which denominations were the main ones at the orginial Council. The churches that make up the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were the ones with Bishops at the meeting.
And this fits with a point I've seen you make on other occasions, to wit, that in the ancient Church, there were orthodox Catholic Christians and there were heretics. There weren't other options kicking around at the time. The bishops who came together at the Council weren't representatives if different denominations: They were the bishops of THE Church. And many of them didn't feel any pressing need to adopt an official listing of canonical books. The Church had, after all, done just fine for more than two centuries without a canonized Bible. I'm sure this had a lot to do with the fact that early Christians regarded the Bible as just one part of God's revelation, so there was always something else--namely Tradition and the teaching authority of the bishops--to guide people's understanding of the truths of the faith. People sometimes forget today, or perhaps just don't fully realize, how important the bishops were in those first centuries.
As an historical aside, many people also don't realize that the first canon of Christian Scripture was produced by the Gnostic heretic Marcion. He famously rejected the whole of the OT along with much of the NT as being too Jewish. Needless to say, Matthew didn't make it into Marcion's canon.
Quote:
So since it was what everyone now calls the Catholic Church, that had the meeting and set up the books,
It is often remarked that the Church gave the Bible to the world. Even those today who are quite hostile to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches use a Bible that was created by them at Nicaea.
Quote:
And since the Catholic Church of the East and West split over issues other than this.
Right, the Great Schism wasn't over the Bible.
Quote:
why would it not be considered correct that the books they use were the original ones the church decided on.
I very much hope to hear from people on this. It is, to my mind, an interesting question to which I don't know the answer. I suspect lots of people have different views about it and I hope to hear them.
Quote:
This does not help in the issue of a few books difference between the church of the east and west but it does bring to light at least no use of the books at all.
Good point. It presents the deletion of books from the canon in an interesting light.
Quote:
And of course one merely has to read posts here of some, to know that any action done that is considered Catholic is automatically wrong since it is Catholic.
I was beginning to wonder if you noticed. Different denominations use different canons of Scripture, and because of that my original question is a question about denominations--but only in a pretty roundabout way. Nevertheless, I would like members of different denominations to have the chance to have their voices heard on this question without feeling under attack--especially since I am genuinely interested to learn more about how people choose which Bible they use in their own spiritual life. Since we all agree that the Bible is of the greatest importance, this is a decision that is potentially momentous for one's life as a Christian. There are a few posters here who go to great lengths to publicize their disdain for Catholicism. I honestly don't begrudge them their disagreements with the Catholic Church: I was not Catholic for a good many years and I can see where some of those who disagree are coming from. What makes things a bit more difficult for many of us (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) is when people repeatedly make remarks that are demeaning about Catholicism and then cry foul when others (again, Catholic and non-Catholic alike) defend Catholicism from those remarks. It puts people in the very difficult position of choosing either to let a falsehood stand and so achieve the appearance of truth (and potentially mislead or confuse those who read it) or to challenge it and be accused on that account of all sorts of unpleasant things. I very much hope that the present discussion will proceed, as so many others have, unmarred by theatrics.
Quote:
And that same feeling was alive during the time that the early churches started or split from the Catholic Church.
Especially in England, where theology was put in the service of a nationalistic political agenda--as it was in Spain as well, where Catholicism was co-opted in order to service the regime's political ends. All the more reason to find edifying the robust and congenial ecumenical dialogue that exists today between the Catholic Church and the Church of England, the Lutherans in Germany, and the ancient Eastern Orthodox patriarchates, to name just a few. As myself a fan of Christian unity it is encouraging to see these churches moving closer together all the time.
