Canon of Scripture

[Steadfast]

There is no way of knowing.

When he changed the Scriptures from “The just shall live by faith” to say “The just shall live by faith alone,” he said, “Tell that bastard Pope that Dr. Martin Luther would have it so.”

Doubtless because they simply accept whatever tradition they have been handed by their ancestors.

I don’t believe he called the Pope a bastard. You may want to check your reference, if it’s O’Hare or Crocker, I’d really want to check it.

As for the addition of the word “alone” it’s really not that big a deal, translators do that sort of thing all the time when they add or subtract words from the original texts in order to bring the meaning into common parlance.

the point is that if we are justified by faith, what else are we justified by when he (Paul) also says that we are not justified by works? What else is there to be justified by?

Answer: nothing, therefore we are declared righteous by faith alone.

 

[Pwrlftr]

When he changed the Scriptures from “The just shall live by faith” to say “The just shall live by faith alone,” he said, “Tell that bastard Pope that Dr. Martin Luther would have it so.”

The below two quotes by Luther may shed some light on this.

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich]
, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

He give his reasoning below…

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

Luther didn’t just whimsically add the word alone to the text. As Cardinal Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

 

[Pwrlftr]

There is no way of knowing.

Is there any reason to doubt that he was settled w/ his belief in the canon especially since he included all the books in his edition of the Bible?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Manny and JM,

Augustine apparently didn’t seem to think the earlier councils were binding upon the conscience of believers.
Augustine and the North African Councils:

The first point to note regarding the Councils of Hippo and Carthage is that they were provincial Councils which had no authority to rule on the canon for the Church as a whole. Augustine, who was the guiding spirit of these Councils, admitted as much:

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.84

Augustine acknowledged the lack of unanimity in the Churches regarding the canon and gave advice on how to determine which books were truly canonical.

In effect he said one was to follow the judgment of the majority of churches. So, if it could be shown that some of the books sanctioned by Hippo and Carthage were not accepted as canonical by the majority of Churches then the North African Churches must yield on this point. Obviously, then, in promulgating the decree on the canon, Hippo and Carthage were not laying down a law for the universal Church but expressing the opinion and practice of their particular region.

Since the Bible used by the North African Church was the Old Latin, a translation of the Septuagint which included a number of the books of the Apocrypha, these Councils were simply confirming the traditional canon for the North African Church based on the Septuagint.

Now, note what Cardinal Cajetan has to say:
Cardinal Cajetan:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about him

“Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly. To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.”

How could he have not known the earlier councils were binding upon his conscious?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Catholic Encyclopedia:

The OT Canon In The Latin Church During the Middle Ages
**In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. **The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. **The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” (which rejected the books as inspired/canonical) was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; **it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.

If the earlier councils were binding, why was there still questions as to the character of the books many centuries after Carthage and Hippo?

Why would a work that clearly defied the earlier councils proclamation of the canon such as the Glossa be “highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning”? If the earlier councils were in fact binding wouldn’t the Glossa have been supressed since it clearly rejected the deutero/apocrypha?

 

[Pwrlftr]

CE:

D. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH TO THE CLOSE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time **there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others–a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage. **

Again, if the earlier councils were binding upon the church universal, why did Jerome’s preface have such a negative affect and why was his preface allowed to circulate if it defied a council which you guys claim was capable of binding the acceptance of the canon on the conscience of believers? Also, it’s a curious comment to say that the Greeks placed the deuteros/apocrypha on the same level as the canonical scriptures more to forgetfulness than to deference to Carthage if in fact Carthage had the authority you guys claim.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, if the earlier councils were binding upon the church universal, why did Jerome’s preface have such a negative affect and why was his preface allowed to circulate if it defied a council which you guys claim was capable of binding the acceptance of the canon on the conscience of believers? Also, it’s a curious comment to say that the Greeks placed the deuteros/apocrypha on the same level as the canonical scriptures more to forgetfulness than to deference to Carthage if in fact Carthage had the authority you guys claim.

It was the Pope’s ruling that was binding - and that pertained only to the New Testament. They used the traditional Old Testament, without making any changes to it (meaning, not taking out the seven Deuterocanonical books), and without making any ruling about it one way or the other.

Notice that St. Jerome did in fact include all seven in his translation - do you think he didn’t know that he was creating the official Bible of the Church? And yet, he included them.

 

[ryanoneil]

I completely missed the link. If you get a chance over the next day or two and have an interest in finding more information, please post it but if you don’t, no big deal.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as “too Gentile-tainted.” Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews — though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

 

[peary]

Ok, another question:

At what point did a Bible finally appear, with all of the canonical books, in a single tome in a single language? I ask this because before that point, it would have been difficult for average people to have access to all of the scriptures, since one would have had to known both Greek and Hebrew to read them. Wouldn’t this be the point, strictly speaking, at which we had a final version of the Bible?

By the way, it would be relevant to know which particular canon was used in that particular Bible.

The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) set the canon of the New Testament. They also confirmed the Septuagint (the canon of old testament scriptures in Greek) as the “Old Testament.” Evidence of the Septuagint’s acceptance by the early Church can be found in the New Testament itself. It quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times. Three hundred of those quotes are from the Septuagint.

Average people were illiterate. They could not READ. That is why you found bibles in churches only, and in the direct hands of its ministers who COULD read.

Some eastern and middle eastern rite churches (Catholic as well as Orthodox) have even MORE books in their old testament scriptures, and the Church has allowed this.

During the protestant revolt against the Church, some of the books contained within the bible itself became suspect and did not agree with the new emerging protestant theologies. Various protestant theologians believed that since these books did not appear to support doctrines or beliefs of the Church, or if biblical books in question did not support the protestant theologies, they should be eliminated. It actually wasn’t until the Council of Trent in the 1500s that the Church verified that the Canon was closed, and all books in the Bible were official.

 

[steve_b]

I disagree.

Folks such as Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan rejected the apocryphas/deuterocanonical books and they were around at the reformation.

Allow me to clarify

1. 
   *]The Church did not exclude those books. And THAT takes precedence over personal opinions of individuals
   *]Ximenes and Cajetan didn’t start their own churches. And clearly would have changed their opinions to follow the Church.
   Pwrl:
   

   Ximenes even had his study bible approved by the pope and he outright rejected the books

   Which study bible are you talking about?
   Pwrl:
   

   Heck even Pope Gregory rejected at least one of the books.

   from Constantinople (prior to going to Rome and becomming Pope). was speaking from Constantinople where he was located when he saidWith reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Joseph Gildea, Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991, Part 1, Book 3, p. 126.) This was around 550 A.D. in Constantinople. Now the question that needs to be asked is, do all Eastern Orthodox and Catholics include Maccabees in the canon of scripture? Yes. So when did this happen?
   Pwrl:
   

   The main study bible of the middle ages (Glossa Ordinaire) clearly rejected the books as canonical.

   The Glossa is a compilation of footnotes and margin notes to describe or clarify words, phrases, and ideas.
   Pwrl:
   

   The New Catholic Encyclopedia this to say, “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

   I see by your answers so far you’re following James Whites (AOM) apologetic. .
   
   This is from the Catholic encyclopedia
   
   Canon of the Old Testament - Signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church
   Canon of the New Testament - The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history
   Pwrl:
   

   Yeah but so what? Catholics such as Ximenes and Erasumus who were contempraries of Luther expressed doubts about books of the NT such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, Jude and I do believe Revelations.

   Did they remove those books? No
   
   Did they start a revolt? No
   Pwrl:
   

   Catholics are free to question the canon but Luther isn’t?

   Luther did more than question, as you know. .

 

[jmcrae]

Good point.

I don’t mean to make you work tonight, but do you have a website that discusses this?

I used to have several, but they seem to have moved. Most of the information is available in regular Church histories, though, like the ones they give to RCIA and to Catechism classes for teenagers.

What do you make of the apparent dissent?

I don’t see it as being any different from modern-day dissent. It’s easy to distinguish between what is coming from the Church, and what is coming from elsewhere with the question of Christ’s divinity, or whether He ever actually existed or not (which is going to be the big theme on Discovery this Advent) - in the same way that we just instinctively know that the people who write for Discovery are not speaking for the Church, I am sure that the people of the 4th and 5th centuries knew perfectly well who was speaking for the Church, and who was just speculating out loud.

 

[Pwrlftr]

"steve:

*]The Church did not exclude those books. And THAT takes precedence over personal opinions of individuals
*]Ximenes and Cajetan didn’t start their own churches.

That “The Church did not exclude those books. And THAT takes precedence over personal opinions of individuals.” isn’t the issue as that statement has no bearing on whether or not the earlier councils were binding on all believers.

Also, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan probably did accept the council of Trent w/ regards to the canon and certainly didn’t start their own church but that isn’t the issue either. Cajetan clearly didn’t see the earlier councils as binding upon his conscious and he was known as a scholar. If the earlier councils were in fact binding, why was he unaware of this?

Which study bible are you talking about?

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

Wee see that the Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes was sanctioned by Pope Leo X and it separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and received papal sanction.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Glossa is a compilation of footnotes and margin notes to describe or clarify words, phrases, and ideas.

The Glossa Ordinaria

The Ordinary Gloss, known as the Glossa ordinaria, is an important witness to the position of the Western Church on the status of the Apocrypha because it was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance:

A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of ‘glosses’ on the text of a given MS. The earliest Glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century…Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best-known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries…So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and ‘the bible of scholasticism’.119

Karlfried Froehlich summarizes the importance, authority and influence of the Glossa ordinaria on the Middle Ages:

For medieval Christians this tool was supremely necessary, indispensable for the reading of the sacred book which could not be understood without it. In their preface of 1617, taking up Peter Lombard’s remark about the Gloss as the ‘tongue’ of Scripture, the Douai theologians gave voice to this sentiment. Many generations, they suggested, 'thought of this collection of scriptural interpretation so highly that they called it the “normal tongue” (glossa ordinaria), the very language (lingua) of Scripture, as it were. When Scripture speaks with it, we understand. But when we read the sacred words without it, we think we hear a language which we do not know.'120

Alister McGrath adds these comments:

…the Glossa Ordinaria may be regarded as a composite running commentary upon the text of the bible, characterized by its brevity, clarity and authoritativeness, drawing upon the chief sources of the patristic period…So influential did this commentary become that, by the end of the twelfth century, much biblical commentary and exegesis was reduced to restating the comments of the gloss.121

The original Glossa ordinaria began as a marginal gloss on the Bible and was attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century. Over time the interlinear gloss was added which most likely originated in the twelfth century with Anselm of Laon. Margaret Gibson confirms this:

To this extent the old heresy is not without foundation: that Walafrid Strabo (a Carolingian) wrote the marginal gloss, whereas Anselm of Laon (the early scholastic) wrote the interlinear. The dating is sound enough.122

The work consisted of standard commentaries on the books of the Bible by major Church fathers and theologians from the Carolingian period. The principal Church fathers and theologians who provided authoritative commentary in the Gloss are described by Margaret Gibson:

Ultimately the principal contributor to the Gloss-the giant who bears it on his shoulders-is Jerome. He was responsible for the text of the Bible, for many of the explanatory prefaces to individual books, and for the learned and comprehensive exegesis of most of the Old Testament and part of the New. Behind Jerome stands Origen, whose work was known directly to Jerome but to later scholars indirectly (and partially) in Rufinus’ translation. Augustine contributed to Genesis and Ambrose to Luke; Cassiodorus to the Psalms, and Gregory the Great at least to Job and perhaps to Ezekiel and the Gospels. The next great figure is Bede. He is the leading player in Ezra-Nehemiah, Mark, the Acts of the Apostles and the Canonical Epistles. The basic material from Jerome to Bede, was edited in the ninth century by Rabanus Maurus, who commented the entire Old Testament (except Baruch) and much of the New. Paschasius Radbertus supplied a commentary on Lamentations and revised Jerome’s commentary on Matthew.123

 

[Pwrlftr]

Glossa Ord. continued
The Glossa Ordinaria

The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It states that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, citing the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support. When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it prefixes an introduction to them saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon’ and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome. For example, the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and non-canonical books. It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124

The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome. Again, the significance of this is that the Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians. Therefore, it represents the overall view of the Church as a whole, demonstrating the emptiness of the claims of Roman apologists that the decrees of Hippo and Carthage officially settled the canon for the universal Church. We come back again to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Roman Catholic Church until the sixteenth century with the Council of Trent.

 

[Pwrlftr]

from Constantinople (prior to going to Rome and becomming Pope). was speaking from Constantinople where he was located when he saidWith reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Joseph Gildea, Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1991, Part 1, Book 3, p. 126.) This was around 550 A.D. in Constantinople. Now the question that needs to be asked is, do all Eastern Orthodox and Catholics include Maccabees in the canon of scripture? Yes. So when did this happen?

I do believe that Jurgens disagrees with you but nonetheless, you still have yet another instance of a prominent Catholic, a future pope (that is if he wasn’t pope when he wrote this) not realizing the earlier councils were binding.

I see by your answers so far you’re following James Whites (AOM) apologetic.

What am I to make of your statement?

This is from the Catholic encyclopedia

Canon of the Old Testament - Signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church
Canon of the New Testament - The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history

I am unsure of the point you are trying to make here. Newadvent.org says, and I quote:

A. THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON (INCLUDING THE DEUTEROS) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.

What is special about Trent? It was the first infallible pronouncement on the canon addressed to the church universal. How do you explain this statement if you think the earlier councils were infallible pronouncements addressed to the church universal?

Did they remove those books? No

Did they start a revolt? No

Luther did more than question, as you know. .

That isn’t the issue.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It was the Pope’s ruling that was binding - and that pertained only to the New Testament. They used the traditional Old Testament, without making any changes to it (meaning, not taking out the seven Deuterocanonical books), and without making any ruling about it one way or the other.

Notice that St. Jerome did in fact include all seven in his translation - do you think he didn’t know that he was creating the official Bible of the Church? And yet, he included them.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org

"D. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH TO THE CLOSE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity"

He included them but apparently wasn’t in favor of them.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Hey, I just found this over at envoy…from Mark Shea
shea:

Myth 5

The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.

First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn’t defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ’s earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea’s definition. This doesn’t make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, **nonetheless wasn’t dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. **And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

I have thus far presented a fair amount of information, much of it from Catholic sources, supporting the fact that the earlier councils were not infallible and certainly weren’t binding on the conscience of believers. Even Mark Shea seems to agree with this as I suppose would Envoy magazine since the article was published by them.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

 

[steve_b]

That “The Church did not exclude those books. And THAT takes precedence over personal opinions of individuals.” isn’t the issue as that statement has no bearing on whether or not the earlier councils were binding on all believers.

That the Church did NOT exclude these books IS most certainly an important issue.
Pwlt:

Also, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan probably did accept the council of Trent w/ regards to the canon and certainly didn’t start their own church but that isn’t the issue either.

Then why did you bring them up? Because they may have disagreed on their canonical status? The Church obviously disagreed with THEM. That’s all there is to that.
Pwlt:

Cajetan clearly didn’t see the earlier councils as binding upon his conscious and he was known as a scholar. If the earlier councils were in fact binding, why was he unaware of this?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2964376&postcount=70

I’ve been consistant in my positions regarding what is binding on the entire Church.
Pwlt:

In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

Wee see that*** the Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes*** was sanctioned by Pope Leo X and it separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and received papal sanction.

Re the Polyglot Bible and the OT:

• the pages consisted of three parallel columns of text: Hebrew on the outside, the Vulgate in the middle, and the Greek Septuagint (complete) on the inside. What is so strange about making this comparison?
• We know the septuagint was the official OT text accepted by the Church

 

[Pwrlftr]

That the Church did NOT exclude these books IS most certainly an important issue.

Important? Well, yes of course it is but it has nothing to do with whether or not Carthage and Hippor were binding upon the conscience of believers.

Then why did you bring them up? Because they may have disagreed on their canonical status? The Church obviously disagreed with THEM. That’s all there is to that.

I bring them up only to illustrate that the earlier councils were not binding upon the conscience of believers. I have a feeling you are trying to discuss one thing and I another.

 

[Pwrlftr]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2964376&postcount=70

“Since Hippo and Carthage were local councils, they don’t bind the entire Church to their ruling…”

That’s all I have been trying to say. However in an earlier post you say disagree w/ me when I say believers had some freedom w/ regards to the canon before Trent. It appears you hold contradictory beliefs.