Any Catholic apologists want to take a crack at this?

[ccmnxc]

I was in discussion on another forum about the Catholic Church. When I asked how one could defend sola scriptora on the basis that scripture doesn’t tell us which books were in the Canon, this was the reply:

The issue of the canon, is a classical argument given by R C apologists. The classic argument was between the great and well-reknowned RC apologists Bellarmine and Stapleton, and the Protestant scholar William Whitaker.

I would recommend reading Whitaker’s ‘Disputations on Holy Scripture’. The question as to the canon is one which has been given an answer.

There are 2 ways I could.respond. The first way is to iffer the Tu Quoque:

That is, I can show you that the RC position is no better than the protestant position.

Usually, it is asserted that we need an infallible magisterium to determine for us the canon. This proposition fails however, because the RC Church did not infallibly define the canon until the council of Trent.
It is often argued that the councils of Hippo and Carthage defined the canon. What us
is not often mentioned however, is that these councils were not ecumenical and therefore not infallible, but also that these councils had a different canon to the one defined by Trent. Eg., 3 Maccabees.

We must all agree then, that we do not need an infallible magisterium in order for the church to have a functioning canon.

The next step, is to provide a coherent aystem by which we would expect the church to come to know the canon. We do this by noting that if Christianity is true, and Christ really did send Apostles to teach, including the task of writing the NT, then it follows logically that if Jesus did commissionfor the Church to have God’s Word and to know it, then it follows that Chriat’s Church will come, by God’s providence, to know the canon.

This is actually very similar to argumenta given by the RC Church for the infallibility of the Church. In Matthew; Christ promises that the gates of hades will noy prevail against us. The RC believes that therefore, God’s churxh as Chriat’s representative on Earth, can not fail to preach the truth. For the Church to officually teach error, would be for Christ to teach error.

We can get to the deeper theological issues, by noting that knowledge if the Scriptures us part of sanctification. We must also remember that many, even most believers, never possessed the complete word of God. However, we know that God provides what we require for our calling. Thus, the people of God collectively, and individually, come to know and believe the Scriptures in their own time. To use myself as an example, I can say I know the canon, because God has placed my in and place whereby I would have access to information, where I would come to know the canon. This has been a gracious act on God’s part, just as His placing me in a time and place where I would come to know the goapel. The same Spirit who gives us knowledge of the Scripturs, is the same Spirit who calls us to believe the gospel – and the wind blows wherever He wills.

Historically, we can point to the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, in which the same canon which protestants use, is given by Athanasius. Not only Athanasius, but Jerome – the greatest biblical scholar of the Early church, agrees with protestants in not having the deuterocanonicals in the canon.

I would go fudrther and say that the Early Fathers who had the most knowledge of the Bible and the Biblical languages, sided with the protestants in regarda to the OT canon.

Further, the Council of Trent officially and infallibly gave priority to the Latin Vulgate, over the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Unfortunately, it was the poor translation into the Latin which helped solidify the RC docgrine of justification, as it infamously translates dikaiosune as justificare – ‘justify’ is translated as ‘make righteous’. Modern exegetes however, are well aware that the term doea not mean ‘make righteous’, but as to ‘count as righteous’. This is obvious when it is said in the Bible that God is justified. Obviously, no one makea God righteous, but we do consider and see God as righteous.

Sorry if this was a bit of a long read.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t have much time at the moment, so let me start you off small:

Usually, it is asserted that we need an infallible magisterium to determine for us the canon. This proposition fails however, because the RC Church did not infallibly define the canon until the council of Trent.

This argument seems to fail. It assumes that an infallible definition must be the initial definition of a proposition. The Church doesn’t have this requirement; rather, an infallible statement may affirm a previously-asserted, non-infallible pronouncement. For example, it is not the case that the divinity of Christ was only true once a council declared it to be so; however, once it was declared, it became an infallible statement and a binding dogma.

It is often argued that the councils of Hippo and Carthage defined the canon. What us
is not often mentioned however, is that these councils were not ecumenical and therefore not infallible, but also that these councils had a different canon to the one defined by Trent. Eg., 3 Maccabees.

However, Carthage declared the canon, pending ratification by the pope. In this case, it would be the pope’s declaration – not the council’s – that would attach to infallibility. In other words, this argument, too, fails.

We must all agree then, that we do not need an infallible magisterium in order for the church to have a functioning canon.

He just moved the goalposts on you! The question wasn’t about a “functioning canon”, it was about an “infallibly defined canon”! Yes, he’s right: you don’t need an infallible magisterium to have a functioning canon – for that matter, you could have a team of monkeys at typewriters, and you could end up with something that you might characterize as a ‘functioning canon’. However, you’d have the same problem with that ‘functioning canon’: how would you demonstrate that this canon is the one that God intended?

The next step, is to provide a coherent aystem by which we would expect the church to come to know the canon. We do this by noting that if Christianity is true, and Christ really did send Apostles to teach, including the task of writing the NT, then it follows logically that if Jesus did commissionfor the Church to have God’s Word and to know it, then it follows that Chriat’s Church will come, by God’s providence, to know the canon.

Poor logic. He’s saying that, if God meant us to have a canon, then it will happen. Great; I can get behind that. He’s saying that divine providence will provide the definition of the canon. That’s cool, too. However, this doesn’t demonstrate that any particular canon, as defined by any particular non-authoritative group, is the canon that God intended us to have. As an analogy: God wants me to eat healthily. If this is true, then it follows that, by God’s providence, I will eventually eat healthy. However, when I look at the burger and fries in front of me, how do I know that this particular meal is the healthy meal that God intended me to have? Unless someone can authoritatively say to me, “this is the meal that God provided”, then I have no idea. (In other words, this argument fails, too.)

 

[WD615]

Although, I am by no means a polished apologist, I’ll try and contibute.

To note, he tries to pull the Tu Quoque charge (which I suppose he forgets is a logical fallacy). No matter what the deficiency of the Catholic position, he is still stuck in a difficult position himself. If he claims Sola Scriptura then, for his arguments to be valid, he has to demonstrate from scripture 1) a guarantee of the infallibility of a later canon 2) why he trusts that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to an infallible canon but he doesn’t trust seven books that were part of that canon that was universally accepted for 12 centuries and 3) If the canon could have been wrong for 1,200 years, why it can’t be wrong today.

He can’t just throw around Tu Quoque because the Catholic Church doesn’t make the Sola Scriptura claim like he does. Plus it’s completely consistent for Catholics to say the Holy Ghost guided the Church to the correct canon, but inconstinent for him to say the Holy Ghost guided the Church with regards to the canon but not in regard to doctrines (which were undoubtedly Catholic by the time the canon was settled). If he can’t say from Scripture why the Holy Ghost would inform the canon but not doctrine, he’s got no ground to stand on.

 

[Protector]

[ccmnxc;10600697] I was in discussion on another forum about the Catholic Church. When I asked how one could defend sola scriptora on the basis that scripture doesn’t tell us which books were in the Canon, this was the reply:

Sorry if this was a bit of a long read.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Is it possible for you to give the author’s name for the document posted?

Protector.

 

[ccmnxc]

Why, if you don’t mind me asking? Just to be clear, this isn’t on Catholic Answers Forums.

 

[pablope]

I was in discussion on another forum about the Catholic Church. When I asked how one could defend sola scriptora on the basis that scripture doesn’t tell us which books were in the Canon, this was the reply:

Sorry if this was a bit of a long read.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I will just offer some pointers for you:

There are 2 ways I could.respond. The first way is to iffer the Tu Quoque:

That is, I can show you that the RC position is no better than the protestant position.

How?

Usually, it is asserted that we need an infallible magisterium to determine for us the canon. This proposition fails however, because the RC Church did not infallibly define the canon until the council of Trent.

Trent was a response to the protestant desecration of the Bible…they attempted to remove books from the Bible.

What Trent said is…in making dogma the canon, it based on the previous councils and what had been read in the Church before.

It is often argued that the councils of Hippo and Carthage defined the canon. What us
is not often mentioned however, is that these councils were not ecumenical and therefore not infallible, but also that these councils had a different canon to the one defined by Trent. Eg., 3 Maccabees.

They had the endorsement and the backing of the Pope. You could even go earlier…the Council of Rome in AD 382, and Pope Damasus proclamantion of what the canon is…which was the basis of the canon of the later councils.

But what they fail to mention is…after these councils…there was no dispute on what books should be in the Bible…not till the protestants came aong.

We must all agree then, that we do not need an infallible magisterium in order for the church to have a functioning canon.

The protestant attempts to remove books from the Bible is proof of the need for a magisterium.

Actually, the Bibles, protestant and catholic, where the same. Just look at the original KJV as proof. What finally separated the prot and Cath bibles was when the British Foreing bible society decided not to publish the 7 OT books missing today in protestant bibles…sometime in the 1820. prior to this…all Bibles were basically the same.

and Christ really did send Apostles to teach, including the task of writing the NT, then it follows logically that if Jesus did commissionfor the Church to have God’s Word and to know it, then it follows that Chriat’s Church will come, by God’s providence, to know the canon.

How did God make known the Canon of the Bible?

This is actually very similar to argumenta given by the RC Church for the infallibility of the Church. In Matthew; Christ promises that the gates of hades will noy prevail against us. The RC believes that therefore, God’s churxh as Chriat’s representative on Earth, can not fail to preach the truth. For the Church to officually teach error, would be for Christ to teach error.

Historically, we can point to the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, in which the same canon which protestants use, is given by Athanasius. Not only Athanasius, but Jerome – the greatest biblical scholar of the Early church, agrees with protestants in not having the deuterocanonicals in the canon.

Wrong on Jerome. Jerome was commissioned by pope Damasus after the AD382 Rome council to produce the Latin Vulgate…which has been the Catholic Bible since Jerome completed it…sometime around AD400 or so.

What they do not tell you is…Jerome said…“I submit to the judgement of the Church”…that is why he included the 7 OT books in his translation…because he was told by the Pope to do so. Jerome submitted to his bishop.

If he is going to claim Jerome…then he should also follow what Jerome did…submit to the authority of Pope Damasus…and the CC for that matter.

I would go fudrther and say that the Early Fathers who had the most knowledge of the Bible and the Biblical languages, sided with the protestants in regarda to the OT canon.

Have him provide evidence.

 

[EricFilmer]

In terms of the debate at hand, it doesn’t really matter what the nature of the Church councils were which established the canon of Scripture. The point is that the Bible alone is not sufficient to determine what the canon is. If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then one should not have to resort to a process outside of Scripture to define what Scripture is and determine what books belong in the Bible. Even if the councils in question lacked infallibility (and I’m not saying they did), this does not solve the problem facing proponents of Sola Scriptura.

Keep in mind that the basic idea behind Sola Scriptura is that the Bible alone, and not Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium, is the foundation for doctrine. But to answer the question, “How was the canon of Scripture determined?” one cannot resort to the Bible alone but must instead turn to an aspect of Sacred Tradition which was verified by the Magisterium. The pro-Sola Scriptura argument presented by the OP does not resolve this paradox.

 

[Protector]

Originally posted by Protector: Is it possible for you to give the author’s name for the document posted?

ccmnxc;10601679] Why, if you don’t mind me asking? Just to be clear, this isn’t on Catholic Answers Forums.

Oh! but it is ccmnxc, post #1 on this very thread which you yourself started; how else would I have known about it? . However, it’s of no real import, I just wished to check-out the author’s credentials and to view his other apologetic works if any. But no matter, the question of the value of Sola Scriptura will still be a hot topic for many years to come.

Thank you for your post.

Protector.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Some great responses.

Just as an addition to Gorgias’ informative answer.

The person the OP was discussing with claimed:

The next step, is to provide a coherent aystem by which we would expect the church to come to know the canon. We do this by noting that if Christianity is true, and Christ really did send Apostles to teach, including the task of writing the NT, then it follows logically that if Jesus did commissionfor the Church to have God’s Word and to know it, then it follows that Chriat’s Church will come, by God’s providence, to know the canon.

I don’t see what the point of this argument is. Obviously, we would all agree that Christ’s Church will come to know the canon. The question is by what means will it know (God won’t magically drop a list of canonical books from the sky) and, as Gorgias pointed out, what will be the contents of the canon. You could ask your friend, if so many churches claim to be part of Christ’s Church and yet follow different canons, how are we to tell the true Church from a false one?

 

[Goya]

Usually, it is asserted that we need an infallible magisterium to determine for us the canon.

= strawman argument.

I’ve never heard any Catholic apologist assert this. CA’s have asserted the propiety and appropriateness, and authority for one having been declared–but not the necessity.

We had a Bible Cannon, universally recognized for 1000 years before Trent–it’s called the Latin Vugate.

Trent simply rartified that Cannon, when it was called into question by the Reformers–because that’s what Councils usually do–they address issues of the day–and by issues, I mean something previously held being called into question, and therefore being placed at issue.

But prior to Trent, it simply wasn’t an issue. It was accepted, universally, as the final Cannon. We did not need a declaration to settle or finalize it, because it was never at issue, until the Reformation.

It boggles the mind, how so many protestants seek to pretend that the Latin Vulgate didn’t exist.

e.g.–Black legend holds that the Catholic Church sought to keep the Bible from the people, and the Reformation was required to remedy that–and make teh bible accessible to the people.

Really? What bible was the Catholic Church supposedly keeping from the people (setting aside for the moment, that this premise is patently false)–if no such bible existed until after Trent???

Oh yeah…the Latin Vulgate.

It is truly amazing, the failure of the most simple logic one encounters in these exchanges…

 

[ccmnxc]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I pointed this:

However, Carthage declared the canon, pending ratification by the pope. In this case, it would be the pope’s declaration – not the council’s – that would attach to infallibility. In other words, this argument, too, fails.

out on Carthage. This was, I think, the main point of his response:

Hippo and Carthage were local councils, and no Bishop of Rome officially affirned the canons proposed by either if these earlier caouncils. Remember, the canon defined by Carthage is different to thatdefined by Tdent. If the Carthaginian canon was infallibly defined, and the council of Trent was ecumenical, then the RC Church infallibly affirmed contradictory canons. Thus is why most RC apologists do not appeal to these early councils. It is agreed that the RC Church did not infallibly define the can until Trent.

if anyone feels like sticking with it.

 

[ahs]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I pointed this:

out on Carthage. This was, I think, the main point of his response:

if anyone feels like sticking with it.

HIs main argument is that because Carthage did not say, “We heaby dogmatically proclaim the Canon to be…” then it was not a Truth. But that isn’t how it works. The Churhc does not make dogmatic proclamation unless there is a serious need to do so. (There may be an exception to this in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.)

The Canon of Scripture was defined, by the Church, in 382 and reaffirmed in 393, 397, 419. There was no reason, therefore, for the Church to make a dogmatic proclamation, because the Canon had been defined, accepted and reaffirmed throughout the Church. The strongest contenders against the Canon that was defined at those times ultimately accepted the Authority of the Church, despite their disagreements. There were no serious disputes that required a dogmatic proclamation…evidenced by the absence of a dogmatic proclamation.

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

But all this is aside from the fact that he still has not answered you serious charge…that if sola Scriptura is true, then he needs to demonstrate how the Canon is defined by Scripture. He needs to be able to explain, using Scripture, for example, why Philemon is considered the Inspired Word of God, yet the Shepherd of Hermas is not. Don’t let him avoid this. If his belief is true, then he must be able to do this, or he should concede at the very least that he is not able to define the Canon using the Scriptures.

 

[brikar]

"Protector:

Quote:

Originally posted by Protector: Is it possible for you to give the author’s name for the document posted?

Quote:

ccmnxc, post:5, topic:322341"]
Why, if you don’t mind me asking? Just to be clear, this isn’t on Catholic Answers Forums.

Oh! but it is ccmnxc, post #1 on this very thread which you yourself started; how else would I have known about it? . However, it’s of no real import, I just wished to check-out the author’s credentials and to view his other apologetic works if any. But no matter, the question of the value of Sola Scriptura will still be a hot topic for many years to come.

Thank you for your post.

Protector.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Actaeon]

I was in discussion on another forum about the Catholic Church. When I asked how one could defend sola scriptora on the basis that scripture doesn’t tell us which books were in the Canon, this was the reply:

This should be interesting:

the RC Church did not infallibly define the canon until the council of Trent.

Carthage/Hippo had already produced the Canon, Trent merely affirmed what had always been held as true after the protestants took an axe to scripture.

It is often argued that the councils of Hippo and Carthage defined the canon… these councils were not ecumenical and therefore not infallible,

… and were both followed by papal decree that the canon and deuterocanon was formed. This argument is without merit.

but also that these councils had a different canon to the one defined by Trent. Eg., 3 Maccabees.

Even Wikipedia knows that this assertion is incorrect and that Carthage only approved 2 books of Maccabees

we do not need an infallible magisterium in order for the church to have a functioning canon.

As already pointed out, a functioning canon is NOT the same thing as an infallible canon. The canon could be considered “functional” with the inclusion of much of the apocryphal texts, but it would not be INFALLIBLE.

The next step, is to provide a coherent aystem by which we would expect the church to come to know the canon. We do this by noting that if Christianity is true, and Christ really did send Apostles to teach, including the task of writing the NT, then it follows logically that if Jesus did commissionfor the Church to have God’s Word and to know it, then it follows that Chriat’s Church will come, by God’s providence, to know the canon.

All of this, and yet he offers NO proof whatsoever for the belief in an infallible Canon. All he’s said is that it logically stems that there is some means for the Canon to be revealed. Catholics hold that said means is through the infallible declaration of the church… and he doesn’t offer ANY competing means.

Christ promises that the gates of hades will noy prevail against us. The RC believes that therefore, God’s churxh as Chriat’s representative on Earth, can not fail to preach the truth.

Christ also said “As the Father sent Me, so I send you. He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me.” Christ further described the church as the “pillar and bullwark of truth” and told the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to “guide them into all truth” (right before He breathed out upon them).

Catholic doctrine about the authority of the church is actually based on a comprehensive set of statements from God on the subject… we don’t parse a single verse out of scripture and base entire doctrines on an out of context phrase.

Thus, the people of God collectively, and individually, come to know and believe the Scriptures in their own time. To use myself as an example, I can say I know the canon, because God has placed my in and place whereby I would have access to information, where I would come to know the canon. This has been a gracious act on God’s part, just as His placing me in a time and place where I would come to know the goapel.

So in other words, his assertion that the Canon is whatever he feels the canon should be. Sorry, I don’t take his word for what is or is not infallible.

Historically, we can point to the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, in which the same canon which protestants use, is given by Athanasius.

Perhaps he’s unclear, but the word deuterocanon means SECOND CANON, and Athanasius ABSOLUTELY included it with the primary canon. In fact, Athanasius SPECIFICALLY STATES that in his 39th letter, when he says: “But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.”

The issue with Jerome has already been addressed.

I would go fudrther and say that the Early Fathers who had the most knowledge of the Bible and the Biblical languages, sided with the protestants in regarda to the OT canon.

Given that he massively misrepresented his claim about Athanasius’ letter, I don’t take his word for it that other “church fathers” felt this way. Perhaps he’d like to share ACTUAL documents IN CONTEXT to back up his assertion?

Further, the Council of Trent officially and infallibly gave priority to the Latin Vulgate, over the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Unfortunately, it was the poor translation… as it infamously translates dikaiosune as justificare – ‘justify’ is translated as ‘make righteous’. Modern exegetes however, are well aware that the term doea not mean ‘make righteous’, but as to ‘count as righteous’. This is obvious when it is said in the Bible that God is justified. Obviously, no one makea God righteous, but we do consider and see God as righteous.

Lies or ignorance. Justificare EITHER translates to “to act righteous, to behave righteously” OR to “make righteous”. Thus justificare IS the appropriate word for BOTH circumstances, and the translated meaning is given via the context of the word’s placement (as it generally is in all latin based languages). This is the danger of attempting to prove the church wrong by INCORRECTLY translating a SINGLE WORD of the vulgate into English.

 

[fred_conty]

To me the answer is more simple and primitive.

Noone had the “Bible” in the early church. There were only separate writings and some of these were possessed by individual catholic churches to be read and reflected on in their divine liturgy services. The individual catholic churches shared them between each other. There was nothing known as the Bible but only sacred individual readings of individual books. The Bible as the whole collection of inspired books didn’t exist at that time.

These individual books were also expensive to own because each copy had to be hand copied which took time. So the average christian did not have these at their disposal but only knew what the priest taught them at the divine service, and what book happened to be read. They did not have bible meeting as we do today with all sorts of commentaries and explainations. They received their knowledge at the service. And in addition many people at that time were illiterate and could not read.

I think we fail to understand and appreciate just how different things were at that time then for us in the modern world of the printing press and technology. They were very fortunate if they owned any book.

So what this comes down to is what the church at the divine liturgy taught is what doctrine they received and not thru carrying a bible collection of books which did not exist and which were unavailable to them. Their informed faith depended on what they heard and what was preached.

And so Christ said, “go teach all nations”, not “read to all nations”.

Just some thoughts.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

The argument posed in the OP has been thoroughly refuted already, so I won’t say much else on the entirety. It was a weak argument with inaccuracies, anyway. The canon used by the Church as a whole would have constituted the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, anyway, along with the approval of the Vicar. You could additionally ask her why, then, is the Protestant New Testament correct, as the New Testament canon was debated and was not set until outlined by the Church as a whole.

But as far as Jerome goes, the only work I have ever read of his that disagrees with the current canon is that he didn’t like the longer version of Daniel. I couldn’t find anything where he rejected outright all the other books. Does anyone know which work this was in, or if he even did reject the other books explicitly?

 

[pablope]

The argument posed in the OP has been thoroughly refuted already, so I won’t say much else on the entirety. It was a weak argument with inaccuracies, anyway. The canon used by the Church as a whole would have constituted the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, anyway, along with the approval of the Vicar. You could additionally ask her why, then, is the Protestant New Testament correct, as the New Testament canon was debated and was not set until outlined by the Church as a whole.

But as far as Jerome goes, the only work I have ever read of his that disagrees with the current canon is that he didn’t like the longer version of Daniel. I couldn’t find anything where he rejected outright all the other books. Does anyone know which work this was in, or if he even did reject the other books explicitly?

This should give you more information on jerome:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/06/deuterocanon-curious-case-of-jerome.html

On Daniel…Jerome said he…The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

Which is what is in the CC bibles. I have always wondered…if Protestants cite Jerome…why don’t they follow what he did on the DC books…follow the judgement of the Church…

 

[PeaceInChrist]

This should give you more information on jerome:

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/06/deuterocanon-curious-case-of-jerome.html

On Daniel…Jerome said he…The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/06/st-jerome-on-deuterocanon.html

Which is what is in the CC bibles. I have always wondered…if Protestants cite Jerome…why don’t they follow what he did on the DC books…follow the judgement of the Church…

Yes, I’ve read Jerome’s objection to the longer version of Daniel. But I’ve never read anything in which he objects to the entirety of the dueterocanon. The link provided didn’t expound upon this, either. It is clear that Jerome had an issue with Daniel from Theodotion’s version, but did he have an issue with anything else? I can’t find anything that says he does.

 

[ccmnxc]

Thank you all for your answers.

 

[Goya]

Yes, I’ve read Jerome’s objection to the longer version of Daniel. But I’ve never read anything in which he objects to the entirety of the dueterocanon. The link provided didn’t expound upon this, either. It is clear that Jerome had an issue with Daniel from Theodotion’s version, but did he have an issue with anything else? I can’t find anything that says he does.

Well, actually the link did–it just didn’t spell it out in detail–rather the author seems to have presumed some background knowledge. Perhaps a fair amount of such… From the link:

In Jerome’s case, he lived in Palestine, and was surrounding by a post-Christ Jewish culture which rejected the Deuterocanon. He, and some other Palestinian Catholics, preferred the then-uniform Hebrew Canon, apparently for this reason. However, Jerome elsewhere quotes from the Deuterocanon as inspired

Additionally, Jerome did include the Deuterocanon at the Pope’s request in his translation of the Vulgate, suggesting that even though his gut feelings might have lead him in one direction, he was willing to submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

So here’s the missing background. Pope Damasus commissions St. Jerome to translate the bible into Latin, which untimately yields the Latin Vulgate. In doing so, St. Jerome favors the Hebrew OT, to the Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew OT does not contain the ‘DC’ books; the Septuagint does. Now, let’s take a step back, and ask why does the Hebrew OT not include those books, while the Septuagint does (…and you’ll see why Pope Damasus essentially over rules St. Jerome’s judgment, and instructs him to include them).

***The Septuagint is the Greek Translation of the original Hebrew OT, which was drafted and approved around 200-100 BC–by 70 translators, representing all 12 tribes of Israel ***(hence no one ever questioned its authenticity or legitimacy–it enjoyed full authoratative approval). ***This is the version of the OT known and used by Christ and the Apostles ***(as evidenced by the fact that the NT contains more than 135 references to it, to the exclusion of the Hebrew OT).

So, why not use the original Hebrew OT’, rather than the Septuagint, if the latter (LXX) was based on the former (Hebrew OT)?

Ans.–Because the original Hebrew manuscripts were lost upon the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, and the resulting diaspora of the Jews. Destoryed. Annihalated. Gone. They no longer exist.

Hence the Hebrew OT upon which St. Jereome relied, which did not contain the DC books, had to be reconstituted. From whence, you ask?

Why from the Septuagint–the most reliable, and officially sanctioned written record of the original Hebrew OT to have survived the sack of J’lem/diaspora.

Who commissioned this reconstitution, and when? The Jewish authorities, in or around 200 AD.

Why then, did they seek to eliminate the DC books, if they were included in the Septuagint?

Because by 200 AD, Christianity had spread and taken hold–WITHIN JUDAISM. At this point, Christianity is still largely viewed as a subsect of Judaism. Hence the Jewish authorities sought to discredit Christianity–because if Christ was the Messiah prophesized in their scripture…well, then they would be rendered obsolete (‘they’ being the Jewish authorities). Hence, in reconstituting the Hebrew OT, they sought to make it less Christological–part of which included, keeping those DC books out.

So it actually was in paplobe’s link–just not spelled out

…and yes, St. Jerome did propose to exclude those DC books. I suppose some have attempted to use this as authority to show ‘contradiction’ or inconsistency within Sacred Tradition–I see it as an excellent example of Sacred Tradition–of a proper correction made according to poper authority. Note that when the Reformers and their progeny seek to follow the post Chirstian Jewish authority (even as St. Jerome did) by excluding those books–because they ‘protest’ the Pope’s authority–they are favoring Judaism to Christianity.