[A.J.Armitage]

I don't think it's that simple: they're not called the Gnostic Gospels, for nothing;

Well, they were written by Gnostics and they purport to recount the words and/or actions of Jesus, so yes, they would be called "Gnostic Gospels". Not sure what you think that has to do with my post.

I reiterate: that is Tradition.

At first I thought you mistakenly assumed I was thinking of Cardinal Newman when I mentioned "history", but apparently now you insist on misreading any knowledge of the past as Tradition with a capital T. The only reply I can think of is to ask you to stop being silly.

Excuse me if this seems nit-picky, but we have to agree, one way or another, on what we mean by the word.

Either I'm not putting the question right or you're trying to dodge it. Ignore the word "Canon". Does the Church add anything or recognize what already exists?

The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a process stimulated by disputes, both within and without the Church, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils.

The last line is inaccurate. The first ecumenical (or "ecumenical" for the EOs out there) council that said anything about the Canon was Trent. The only counciliar definitions before that were local. So the final form of the New Testament Canon preceeds the "dogmatic definition" by over a thousand years.

Which means (and this must seem an irony for someone in your position) that Christians throughout most of history have used a Canon with exactly the same basis Protestants still believe ours has.

I've always been mystified why anyone would take [the Lerins quote] seriously. If that's how you define orthodoxy, then by the surviving history (in the sense I intended that phrase in the first place) there's no orthodoxy at all.

I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by that. Orthodoxy is the truth that has been handed down to us. It is still being handed on: by word of mouth, in writing, in the example and lives of the Saints.

It would probably help if you read what Vincent said. I had assumed you knew, since you not only introduced him to the discussion but quoted him in Latin and English.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is getting comfusing. I think we're using words without close agreement on definitions, which is always fatal to a discussion of this sort. For starters, I think there's been some (inadvertent) equivocation about what we mean by "Tradition," "the Canon," and even "the Church."

I don't think either of us is guilty of insistent misreading, silliness, or dodging questions. So I'll soldier on, if you will.

You remarked, "even the Gnostics knew the difference between Thomas and, say, John." I took that to suggest that even the Gnostics didn't accept the Gnostic Gospels as being Scripture. My larger point (and maybe we agree) is that there was quite a bit of writing in the early centuries which was finally rejected from the Canon as apocryphal. That doesn't mean it was all false, still less that it has no insights to offer us about the early Christian milieu. It just means that there was a sorting process. Sorting is, by definition, the establishment of a canon.

"...you insist on misreading any knowledge of the past as Tradition with a capital T." Not so. Not at all. If I gave that impression, it is mistaken.

Does the Church add anything or recognize what already exists?

What can you possibly mean by this? It was men of the early Church--- the original Apostles and some who were not among the original Twelve (Luke, Mark, and Paul)--- who wrote the New Testament. I'm sure you're not suggesting that it "already existed" before they wrote it. In short, the Church wrote the New Testament. The New Testament is the Church's book.

There was an historical process of sorting out what was entirely divinely-inspired and what wasn't. That sorting-out is the formation of the canon. Eventually --- as late as Trent -- it was all dogmatically defined. Trent didn't invent anything. Trent "dogmatized" what was the centuries-long and widespread usage of the Church.

Does that about cover it?

You wrote: ..the final form of the New Testament Canon preceeds the "dogmatic definition" by over a thousand years.

True. Though Martin Luther wanted, as I understand it, to toss out the Epistle of St. James. To speak, on the other hand, of the Old Testament, Protestant Bibles today omit Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch and other parts of the Septuagint, which was the Bible as read and accepted by the Apostles and which was universally received by Greek-literate Christians (which is to say, in the ancient world, virtually all Christians of the Mediterranean civilization.)

Which means (and this must seem an irony for someone in your position) that Christians throughout most of history have used a Canon with exactly the same basis Protestants still believe ours has.

Yes, with the exception of the above Protestant omissions of the Septuagint canon. Other than that, they accepted what was handed down to them by the Catholic Church.

Please elaborate on your evaluation of Vincent of Lerins.