Deuterocanon Round Table Discussion

[RaisedCatholic]

Not being divinely inspired, where does he get the right to make that decision.

If I remember right in the video, Mr. Lofton pointed out that there is not an official list of books stating what the actual first century canon was.

The apostle Paul stated all Scripture is inspired, not people which includes councils & the clergy. So, people can’t “decide” what the inspired canon, since they are not God-breathed. And what Mr. Lofton also conceded was that you can’t find an actual first century list of Deuterocanonical books either. And he also admitted that while you can find lists of the “smaller” canon in the 2nd through 4th centuries closer to that of Protestants, it’s not until you get to the 4th century that you find lists similar to that of Catholics, and even then not a consensus. So, it’s curious that he will accept a “bigger” list that isn’t found until later in the 4th century, but he won’t accept the “smaller” list found in the second, third, & even the 4th centuries. That seems inconsistent with his criteria on what, and why, he’ll accept a canon.

And what was pointed out in the discussion was while we don’t find an actual “list” of enumerated books, both Irenaeus & Josephus referred to the canon as “to the time of Artaxerxes,” which would exclude the Deuteros. And Josephus gave a 22 book canon that “made the hands unclean.” These too would exclude the Deuteros, but include the “smaller” books in the Hebrew Bible.

when I hear, Jimmy Akins, said this or said that, I take it with a grain of salt.

So, how do you determine what he says is accurate or not, including the boundary of the canon of Scripture, when the boundaries of the Catholic canon are still not exhaustively defined after 2,000 years?

the divine inspiration on what books were to be included in the canon came through the Holy Spirit over time, so yes to your question.

Aside from that assumption, it still remains that Jesus knew what the canon was. So, when you say “yes” that Catholicism still doesn’t know what the canon is - in its entirety in terms of a complete God-breathed canon - then that means, Jesus & the apostles knew what it was, but did not tell the first century church what it was, which means they did not pass it onto the later church, which still does not know. Does this sound reasonable to you that Jesus would keep the church in the dark, even in the apostolic era?

Mr. Lofton & William Albrecht were both asked if they could name even a single ECF or council prior to the 4th century which embraced ALL 7 of the Deuteros, and if they could name a single Jewish leader or council prior to or contemporary with the time of Christ & the apostles who embraced all 7 of them. They both answered, “no” to both questions. So, if they won’t accept the “smaller” canon that CAN be found in the first through fourth centuries (and even prior to the time of Christ), why would they accept a “bigger” canon that can’t be found until the 4th century?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Yes that s exactly what happened.

Really??? So, Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT canon boundaries were, but did not tell the church what it was. Do you really believe they referred back to the OT hundreds of times, but didn’t clarify what it was to the church?

If any tradition gets to decide what is or isn’t Protestant, it would be Lutherans, as it was The Lutheran reformers who filed the formal protest.

“Protestantism” is simply an umbrella term to describe someone who is neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. There is more to it than that, but one of the things ALL Protestants agreed on - whether Lutheran or Reformed - was the boundaries of inspired Scripture, which NONE of them espoused to the 7 Deuteros.

Protestantism has its roots back to the Reformation & the Reformers…”. The Lutheran reformers would spin in their graves to hear that.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that Protestantism BEGAN at the Reformation. That would be a misuse of the term. What is meant by that is that the “protest” against Rome dates back to the Reformation, which its goal was to “reform” the church back to the doctrinal views of the first century church, which included the “smaller” OT canon that they shared with the first century church that did not espouse to those 7 extra books.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Neither was Saint Jerome, doctor of the Church as he is, or any of the other individuals who shared his opinon Pope or council. He humbled himself and was obedient to the Church.

Neither Saint Jerome nor any German or Swiss 1500 years later, had the authority to declare any book or letter inspired or not inspired.

That’s kind of the point made in the round table discussion. Not even Doctors of the Church were “universal” in a shared canon. You can find ECFs, councils (including ecumenical councils), canonized saints, and even Doctors of the Church espousing to different Biblical canons in the early church, right up to the 4th century & even beyond. There is no universality in the church of what the Biblical canon was until Trent. If anything, Protestantism (at least Luther’s Bible) was “defined” before Trent’s was.

Jerome was commissioned by the Pope to produce a fresh Latin translation. So, his obedience to the Pope doesn’t change the fact that he is another example that not all Doctors & other ECFs espoused to the same canon. And as what was brought up in the discussion, the Council of Rome omitted the book of Baruch, nor was it in Jerome’s translation, which wasn’t added for another 400 years to the Vulgate.

And as @JonNC pointed out: if this is true, why did the Holy Spirit hide full knowledge of the canon of scripture from the early Church?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

There is no scriptural or early Church reference.

That is just an opinion.

Yes. It is.
Luther gave an opinion on the canon. It was quite similar to the opinion of Cardinal Cajetan, and Luther contemporary and no friend. This was in the 1500’s. Other than local councils, there was not a consensus on the canon throughout the Church
Opinions also abounded on the canon for centuries.

 

[adf417]

Really??? So, Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT canon boundaries were, but did not tell the church what it was. Do you really believe they referred back to the OT hundreds of times, but didn’t clarify what it was to the church?

My “yes” was to this question -

Do you think Jesus would build a church and not tell them what the complete Biblical canon was, and they would not be certain what the boundaries were? Would they not pass down to the church what the Biblical boundaries were?

 

[JonNC]

“Protestantism” is simply an umbrella term to describe someone who is neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox.

Agreed, though even that is vague.

There is more to it than that, but one of the things ALL Protestants agreed on - whether Lutheran or Reformed - was the boundaries of inspired Scripture, which NONE of them espoused to the 7 Deuteros.

But they had different reasons for their views. I would also add that accepting the deuterocanon does not exclude a group from being Protestant.

That would be a misuse of the term. What is meant by that is that the “protest” against Rome dates back to the Reformation,

The protest was not against Rome. The protest was against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer.

which included the “smaller” OT canon that they shared with the first century church that did not espouse to those 7 extra books.

It also included a smaller NT canon.

The issue of the canon is not that some tradition added of removed books.

If anything, Protestantism (at least Luther’s Bible) was “defined” before Trent’s was.

Luther’s translation had/has 74 books.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The apostle Paul stated all Scripture is inspired, not people which includes councils & the clergy.

Right about Scripture, I agree, though somehow Christ has to reveal to a someone or to a council what is or isn’t Scripture and how to interpret said Scripture. That is Divine Inspiration given to the Popes.

So, it’s curious that he will accept a “bigger” list that isn’t found until later in the 4th century, but he won’t accept the “smaller” list

Isn’t the smaller list included in the larger list?, so he didn’t say he didn’t accept the smaller list but didn’t accept only the smaller list.

So, how do you determine what he says is accurate or not, including the boundary of the canon of Scripture, when the boundaries of the Catholic canon are still not exhaustively defined after 2,000 years?

Catholic catechisms, Catholic councils, documents, dogma, doctrine, Holy Tradition, etc… In other words, Jesus said to go to the Church. Paul said the Church is the foundatin of truth, so that is where I go. Jimmy Akins is a Catholic apologist but he is not the lead Catholic apologist over everything Catholic, just here at this website which the people who run it call it Catholic Answers. Mr. Akin is not infallible. IMHO the video he presented was just a short clip, and parts have been taken out of context and perhaps he didn’t explain what he was saying quite so well and what he said is being misinterpreted.

it still remains that Jesus knew what the canon was.

Absolutely Jesus knew and He revealed it in His time and through His Church.

Then that means, Jesus & the apostles knew what it was, but did not tell the first century church what it was, which means they did not pass it onto the later church

Not quite, Jesus and the apostles did know, did pass it on, though, as you probably know and from Jimmy Akins video, there was much discussion and debate over the OT Canon and actually the NT also. As these debates and controversies happened the Church answered them and, the same as with other issues, defined the Canon.

I think a big part of the issue here is that protestants want the Bible to be the final authority, so they presume that since it is the final authority Jesus and the Apostles should have said at that time that here is the book, here is your final authority, these books only will be in the Bible and nothing else, but Jesus didn’t come to give us a book but a Church, so what was and is divine inspiration would be decided upon, as far as Scripture and other issues, as the Holy Spirit led the Church throughout it’s development.

I am saying this in all charity, because I myself, as once a protestant and now a Catholic revert, once made these similar arguments as Mr. Christie did, but as time went on I realized they were as Mr. Lofton said, assumptions, so I think we will have to agree to disagree here.

God bless

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Luther gave an opinion on the canon. It was quite similar to the opinion of Cardinal Cajetan, and Luther contemporary and no friend. This was in the 1500’s. Other than local councils, there was not a consensus on the canon throughout the Church
Opinions also abounded on the canon for centuries.

So then Christianity is whatever one’s “opinion” is? Did Jesus not say to go to the Church? Did the apostle Paul not say the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth?

Opinions? In all charity, um no.

 

[JonNC]

So then Christianity is whatever one’s “opinion” is? Did Jesus not say to go to the Church? Did the apostle Paul not say the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth?

That is what the Catholic Church permitted until Trent. Do you have a criticism of that?

Opinions? In all charity, um no.

Then you think the Church was wrong until
The 1540’s?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

That is what the Catholic Church permitted until Trent. Do you have a criticism of that?

I have a criticism of your opinion of that because that is not correct. The Catholic church has had councils down through the years that corrected false opinions. They did not allow people to believe and teach whatever they wanted.

Then you think the Church was wrong until
The 1540’s?

I do not believe the Church has been wrong at all, not before 1540 and not after 1540. It has been divinely inspired throughout the years by councils, popes, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. There have been those in and out of the Church who have expressed opinions that have not been in line with Church teaching but that is a whole different topic.

 

[JonNC]

I have a criticism of your opinion of that because that is not correct. The Catholic church has had councils down through the years that corrected false opinions. They did not allow people to believe and teach whatever they wanted

And yet the fact is people were permitted to have their opinions of different books. It is true that the local councils at Rome, Hippo and Carthage set a 73 book canon. But it is Trent that declared it. Until then, Catholics had this liberty. That is not my opinion. It is fact.

I do not believe the Church has been wrong at all, not before 1540 and not after 1540.

Then you must believe it was okay to hold opinions about books in the canon.

There have been those in and out of the Church who have expressed opinions that have not been in line with Church teaching but that is a whole different topic.

In is in complete line with this topic. It was permitted.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

And yet the fact is people were permitted to have their opinions of different books

That is not my opinion. It is fact.

I agree that there were opinions but whether or not the Church allowed opinions is not the same thing. In all charity, you can say it is a fact over and over again with many exclamation points,it does not make it true.

As Jimmy Akins said in his video, the Jewish people at the time of the early church did not have a set canon. Jesus and the apostles chose the septuagint.

Due to early Christian persecution the Church was just trying to stay alive and this was possibly the reason it wasn’t until after Constantine that the Church began to explicitly define the canon of scriptures.

Christians had opinions but the Church was still guiding them into what could be read liturgically and what the Church believed was inspired:

Just a couple of examples:

No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments. (Council of Laodicea 364; Canon 59)

Apart from the canonical Scriptures, nothing [is] to be read in church under the title of divine Scriptures. (Council of Hippo 383, Canon 36)

12. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, [the interpreter] 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. Saint Augustine

Yes, there were opinions but whether or not the Church allowed Christians to have their own opinion of whatever they think is divinely inspired is not correct.

 

[JonNC]

I agree that there were opinions but whether or not the Church allowed opinions is not the same thing.

Yes, it did. Erasmus, Cajetan and others of Luther’s era. Cardinal Cajetan was a papal legate and within views of the DC’s.

In all charity, you can say it is a fact over and over again with many exclamation points,it does not make it true.

But it was.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, it did.

But it was.

So, this is nothing but a “yes they did”, “no they didn’t” conversation. In absolute all charity, I will follow what the Catholic church says rather than an anonymous person on the internet. I gave just a couple of examples of the Church’s guidance. There are certainly more and so with that I will end this conversation.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Yes, it did.

But it was.

So, this is nothing but a “yes they did”, “no they didn’t” conversation. In absolute all charity, I will follow what the Catholic church says rather than an anonymous person on the internet. I gave just a couple of examples of the Church’s guidance. There are certainly more and so with that I will end this conversation.

God bless

Thomas Cardinal Cajetan.

And in this place we conclude the commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (i.e., Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees) are reckoned by divine Jerome as outside the canonical books and he places them among the apocrypha, with the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is clear in the Prologus Galeatus . Nor ought you be disturbed if you find somewhere those books reckoned among the canonical, whether in the sacred councils or among the sacred teachers. For the words of both councils and teachers ought to be brought back to the revision of Jerome, and according to his opinion expressed to bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, those books (and if there are any other similar in the canon of the Bible), are not canonical, i.e., are not normative to confirm those things which are of the faith. But they can be called canonical (that is, normative) for the edification of the faithful, as received and authorized in the canon of the Bible. For with this distinction you can discern the things said by Augustine in book 2 of De doctrina christiana , and written in the Council of Florence under Eugene IV, and written in the provincial councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and by Popes Innocent and Gelasius.
To the praise and glory of Almighty God, at Rome in the year of salvation 1532, but in the 64th year of my life, on the 19th day of July, Amen.

Our Beans: Cajetan on the OT Canon

He was not an anonymous poster on the internet

 

[MagdalenaRita]

He was not an anonymous poster on the internet

St. Jerome obeyed the Church and Thomas Cardinal Cajetan yes had opinions as I said, there were opinions but the Church gave direction and made the final decision.
.

Good day.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

He was not an anonymous poster on the internet

St. Jerome obeyed the Church and Thomas Cardinal Cajetan yes had opinions as I said, there were opinions but the Church gave direction and made the final decision.
.

Good day.

Now you have it right.
Thank you.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Now you have it right

This is exactly what I said above. People had opinions but the Church did not allow any old opinion but corrected and guided.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Now you have it right

This is exactly what I said above.

St. Jerome obeyed the Church and Thomas Cardinal Cajetan yes had opinions as I said, there were opinions but the Church gave direction and made the final decision.

They had and expressed their opinions because they were allowed to. The Catholic Church held consistently to the 73 books, but allowed opinions.
Until Trent, all Catholics were allowed to.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

They had and expressed their opinions because they were allowed to.
Until Trent, all Catholics were allowed to.

I am sorry but you are wrong. As I said you can say it all you want but it doesn’t make it true.

Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384):

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here:

I won’t list them but they are the same books in the Catholic OT.

I will be muting our conversation now.

Thank you.