The Christian Canon (Latter-Day Saints, reject, crucifixion, tradition, beliefs)

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Katzpur,

I am not a scholar on the canon, but in a discussion with a layman of the church he said something that was very interesting. The different churches don't disagree so much on the canon but on the subject of Liturgy. Simply stated, this is the ritual aspect of the church. A lot of Scholars are suspicious of the canon of the Central Church that was formed by Constantine because of the way that any differing opinions were treated. This wasn't open to debate outside of those in the loop. Books were burned, people were excommunicated, etc. etc. This doesn't lend one to trust that all things were put on the table and examined objectively. The canon we ended up with is based on a Paulist doctrine. Believe me, there are many that agree that Paul was not the supreme authority, but a very prolific proselytizer.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Hi Katzpur,

I am not a scholar on the canon, but in a discussion with a layman of the church he said something that was very interesting. The different churches don't disagree so much on the canon but on the subject of Liturgy. Simply stated, this is the ritual aspect of the church. A lot of Scholars are suspicious of the canon of the Central Church that was formed by Constantine because of the way that any differing opinions were treated. This wasn't open to debate outside of those in the loop. Books were burned, people were excommunicated, etc. etc. This doesn't lend one to trust that all things were put on the table and examined objectively. The canon we ended up with is based on a Paulist doctrine. Believe me, there are many that agree that Paul was not the supreme authority, but a very prolific proselytizer.

There's a bit of a problem with this idea. Firstly, Constantine didn't create any sort of a Church at all, and the Church in his era was governed by a Pentarchy (five Patriarchates in five geographically separate sees, so not centrally), but even if he had, there would, as I pointed out, have been at least 3 canons accepted on an equal footing within this Church, as it contained (until Chalcedon) Rome - with the Latin canon, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem - with the Greek canon- and, under the see of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Church with Her own canon. Even after Chalcedon and right up until the Schism of 1054 the Church contained both the Latin and Greek canons with no conflict between them. In fact this is probably one of the few differences between Rome and the Orthodox east that has never been an issue at all in almost 1000 years of Schism.

James

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Iacobpersul
You have corrected a slight mistatement of mine. Constantine did not create the Church, he allowed it to become the official Church of his empire. By "creating" I was meaning to say that he brought the Pentarchy together to make the official canon of the Central Church. He had an active involvement and commissioned 50 bibles to be made I believe.
I am looking forward to learn more of what you know about the early formation of the Church. Thanx

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Scott

There is a difference between the deposit of faith (the unchangeable Gospel message)and dogmas of the Church.... which can be defined to this day. I know I'm not explaining it very well... but there is a difference in PUBLIC revelation (this ended with the death of the last apostle) and a dogma of the faith

Okay, I'm still confused. It sounds like you are saying that the gospel Jesus Christ taught has never changed, and will never change, but that the dogmas of the Church can and do. Am I right?

When you use the phrase "public revelation," I am assuming that you are referring to revelation from God to the Church as a whole, and that you believe that when the last of the Apostles died, the Holy Ghost continued in His role as a revelator, by touching the hearts of individual Christians. If my understanding is incorrect, please correct me before we go on.

So, what is the procedure the Church follows in defining new dogmas? Without the "public revelation" as you put it, how are new dogmas received from God? Or are they received from God at all? And how do the dogmas of the Church tie back to the original gospel message? I think I may be leading my own topic astray here, but this all more or less ties in to my initial question.

The other question that continues to crop up in my mind is the timing of the official closing of the canon. If the Church knew from the first (i.e. from when the last Apostle died) that "public revelation" had ceased, wouldn't it have saved itself a lot of trouble in the long run by declaring the canon closed at that time. It almost appears as if they were, in fact, waiting for continued "public revelation," but that after 400 years, when none came, they officially declared that it wasn't going to happen. I don't know if my questions make sense either (and I can't even say that I need to stop to eat!)

Kathryn

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Okay, I'm still confused. It sounds like you are saying that the gospel Jesus Christ taught has never changed, and will never change, but that the dogmas of the Church can and do. Am I right?

No. The deposit remains the same ... and will for all eternity... dogmas are revealed as the Holy Spirit educates us about the deposit.. this happens over time... just because it takes a certain amount of time for the Church to understand, does not mean that the truth of the revealed dogma is "new"... for instance, and James will agree... the first few Church councils did not invent new dogma... they only defined what was already revealed but disputed. The Catechism explains it like this:

66 The Christian economy... since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

If the Church knew from the first (i.e. from when the last Apostle died) that "public revelation" had ceased, wouldn't it have saved itself a lot of trouble in the long run by declaring the canon closed at that time.

I never said the Church knew... I said "the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church and the Canon was already there, waiting for the Church to "figure it out"...".... but that brings up the need for the Church to make decisions like this... Protestants ignore that without a visible, structured leadership, each individual Christian community would have its own Bible, possibly thousands of different "canons"... this is why we (like the LDS- but for different reasons) reject sola scriptura etc etc...

Scott