Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[MrS]

“Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger” by Gary Michuta

is only days away from being available to all. Copies are expected to be ready for sale Mid-April or sooner.

handsonapologetics.com/ is Gary’s web site… order direct from him or you can go to

grottopress.org/ which is taking orders too.

Take the time to read the comments by Steve Ray, Tim Staples, John Martignoni etc… perhaps a dull subject to some,… but Gary makes the subject come alive.

You can also get the debate with James White on this topic from Gary’s site… CD or DVD ( I believe Gary still has some VHS copies too)

speaking of Mr/Dr White… he posts at his site some support for Webster, as White and Webster would like all to believe that Gary makes things up… BUNK

Gary can prove the Catholic position from historical documents that White can not accept, lest he lose the debate again.

In all sincerity… buy the book. Even if it is not your first choice of reading… it will be an excellant reference book, and will also help Gary to continue his very effective Catholic work.

.

 

[kaycee]

Yes silly you as Philo and Josephus were post temple Jews and we have always acknowledge the Jews who rejected Christ had a shorter canon, the Question is why do you accept the canonof the these Jews who had no authority over the Church and obviously rejected Christ and rejected the New Testament canon of the early church as well as it old testament canon.

Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha as scripture. Jesus mentions the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, no deuts. Jesus NEVER rebukes the Jews for not accepting the deuts! He certainly rebuked them for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition.

The facts are the Jews of Jesus time did not accept the deuts.

The “Oracles of God” were commited to the JEWS and Jesus never condemns them for rejecting the deuts.

To claim the Jews threw out parts of the Oracles of God in reaction to the church is ludicrous. They would no more throw out the Oracles of God than they would throw out their father Abraham. Would’nt Isaiah (chap 53) be the first book to throw out? Why only the deuts? It’s grasping at straws.

Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the church. Despite some catholic objections, and claims that these were always part of canon, the facts speak for themselves. This is even clearly admitted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. 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. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha as scripture. Jesus mentions the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, no deuts. Jesus NEVER rebukes the Jews for not accepting the deuts! He certainly rebuked them for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition.

The facts are the Jews of Jesus time did not accept the deuts.

The “Oracles of God” were commited to the JEWS and Jesus never condemns them for rejecting the deuts.

Yes he did. Even the Gospel of Matthew used the Deutrocanonical Books.

For example in the Hebrew Text,

Issiah 7:14

It is written:

“A young woman shall conceived and bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.”

In the Greek Translation Septuagint:

"A virgin shall conceived and bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.

In Matthew 1:24

A virgin shall conceived and bear a son and shall name him Emmanuel."

So the Gospel used the Greek instead of the Hebrew version of the Greek.

To claim the Jews threw out parts of the Oracles of God in reaction to the church is ludicrous. They would no more throw out the Oracles of God than they would throw out their father Abraham. Would’nt Isaiah (chap 53) be the first book to throw out? Why only the deuts? It’s grasping at straws.

The problem with Jews saying that canon of Scripture closed with Malachi is false. To say it is the final canon in the OT then St. John the Baptist would not be the last prophet.

Like I said time and time again, you Protestant use Jewish Canon who Rejected Jesus rather than use the Deutrocanonical Books that was used by the Christians at the beginning.

Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the church. Despite some catholic objections, and claims that these were always part of canon, the facts speak for themselves. This is even clearly admitted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. 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. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Hippo and Carthage are binding is it were not the 27 NT text would not be binding for use of the liturgy for Christian worship. The Church affirms this by citing the previous Council of Hippo and Carthage in the Council of Trent.

Second St. Jerome recanted in his opinion despite what you disagree. We have cited from St. Jerome that he recanted and rather adhere to the Magisterium of the Church than his own mere opinion.

So again, you have not cited any decree by the Church council that have said the Deutrocanonical Books as not inspired.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Deutrocanonical Books cited in the NT

Septuagint Text Cited in the NT

Consider these. Though they are not quoted they are cited in the Gospel. This you cannot deny.

In addtion,

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/deut.htm Deuterocanonical Books Cited in the New Testament

 

[MrS]

Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha as scripture. Jesus mentions the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, no deuts. Jesus NEVER rebukes the Jews for not accepting the deuts! He certainly rebuked them for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition.

The facts are the Jews of Jesus time did not accept the deuts.

The “Oracles of God” were commited to the JEWS and Jesus never condemns them for rejecting the deuts.

To claim the Jews threw out parts of the Oracles of God in reaction to the church is ludicrous. They would no more throw out the Oracles of God than they would throw out their father Abraham. Would’nt Isaiah (chap 53) be the first book to throw out? Why only the deuts? It’s grasping at straws.

Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the church. Despite some catholic objections, and claims that these were always part of canon, the facts speak for themselves. This is even clearly admitted in the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. 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. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

You have been taught such serious error, I feel compelled to offer you a free copy of Gary Michuta’s work Why Catholics Bibles are Bigger.

By the by… Trent simply re-verified the early Canon… it is false information to think that the Catholic Canon was only declared by Trent.

Until the reformers, there was no need to declare the infallibility of the canon… every Christian already accepted it because there was only one Christian… the Catholic Christian.

That is the case with each heresy… When the heresy raises its ugly head, the Church will react with a public declaration of the Truth.

So…thank you reformers… you have created the opportunity for the Church to declare the canon.

 

[MrS]

So again, you have not cited any decree by the Church council that have said the Deutrocanonical Books as not inspired.

Besides… why give credance to the opinion of a Johnny-come-lately reformer over the declaration of the very Church which gives us its Bible?

 

[Lev23]

Like I said time and time again, you Protestant use Jewish Canon who Rejected Jesus rather than use the Deutrocanonical Books that was used by the Christians at the beginning.

Hippo and Carthage are binding is it were not the 27 NT text would not be binding for use of the liturgy for Christian worship. The Church affirms this by citing the previous Council of Hippo and Carthage in the Council of Trent.

Second St. Jerome recanted in his opinion despite what you disagree. We have cited from St. Jerome that he recanted and rather adhere to the Magisterium of the Church than his own mere opinion.

So again, you have not cited any decree by the Church council that have said the Deutrocanonical Books as not inspired.

Come on though, where is the “meat” of OT scripture?

Luke24:44
He(Jesus) said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

 

[Wisdom]

Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha as scripture. Jesus mentions the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, no deuts. Jesus NEVER rebukes the Jews for not accepting the deuts! He certainly rebuked them for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition.

The facts are the Jews of Jesus time did not accept the deuts.

The “Oracles of God” were commited to the JEWS and Jesus never condemns them for rejecting the deuts.

To claim the Jews threw out parts of the Oracles of God in reaction to the church is ludicrous. They would no more throw out the Oracles of God than they would throw out their father Abraham. Would’nt Isaiah (chap 53) be the first book to throw out? Why only the deuts? It’s grasping at straws.

Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the church…

Jesus rarely quoted books outside of the Torah, Jonah , Isaiah and Pslams so how do you explain the inclusion of the 50 odd books Jesus did not quote from in your canon it has nothing to do with canonization and Jesus Did quote from the dueteros he merley turned negative phrases into the positives except for the phrasing its the exact same though so your hyocritical as your not going to include Tobit and and other books which Jesus uses and your not going to use Wisdom as the most explicit messianic prophecy of any of the OT books. SO shocking that the rabbis immediatly pulled it from their shelves. Yeah the Orcales of God belong to the Jews which accepted Christ not the ones who rejected him and by all means give us the canonical list prior to made up Council of Jamnia, you can’t because none exist, The Rabbis of Jamnia, the Essenes, The Jewish CHristians, the THe Diaspora Jews and the Pharisees and Saduccees all had different canons the idea that they were all the same is a myth that you cannot prove but one we can disprove. And whether a Council is infalliable or not is not important to you so why keep beating that dead horse you don’t accept the infalliable council of Trent.
The early councils are important historically as they reflect the overwhelming view of the early church before the commentaries of Jerome affected opinion otherwise and in the west and very little in the east, there was no objectionin the west before Jerome and this is reflected by the early councils it is not till his opinions became read and reread in his commentaries that objection became known in the West and still the objection the exception to the rule until the middle ages when the objection was became more frequent.
For a protestant you forgot what the Bible says my friend and only remeber what Jerome and Luther says is quite contradictaory as your supposed to appeal to the sola scriptura not Jerome and Luther. THe Bible tells us in Matthew 18 and Acts 15 that we take church disputes to the church and its church councils in matters of dispute we do not go back to individuals such as Luther and Jerome. Take it to the church my friend is what the Bible says it does not say take it Luther or take it Jerome.

 

[Wisdom]

Come on though, where is the “meat” of OT scripture?

Luke24:44
He(Jesus) said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Nobody is saying these books are the meat of scriptures but than again neither is the Song of Songs or Esther and yeah I am sure you can quote Lamentations chapter and verse… NOT! Yet they are in the Bible somehow. We say they are scripture in fact we defer to them the second canon status. This is not to say they are not scripture however as the NT has a second canon as well these books are James, Jude Hebrews and Revelation and yes Luther rejcted these books as well because they were second canon so if your going to be consistent about this second canon rejection by all means by like Luther who at least had the honesty to reject the dueteros of both testaments. You on the other hand try to have it both way and reject the OT duteros and accept the NT duteros perplexing to say the least and inconsistent in logic.

 

[TheWhim]

Um… permit me to say that many, if not all your questions would be resolved if you would read this fine article:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

It also deals with Gregory the Great.

Yours,
Whim

 

[Wisdom]

Um… permit me to say that many, if not all your questions would be resolved if you would read this fine article:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

It also deals with Gregory the Great.

Yours,
Whim

Exceelnt all in one resource but it contain many of the arguments we already posted I am afriad our protestant brethren will not believe an article unless it is written by superpose William Webster or Geisler or John MacArhur et al. Unless it is written by their hack apologist they don’t give it the light of day. That is unfortuanate because there is another side of the story that is quite convincing an is more accurate of the thoughts of majority of the church during the first millinium especially in the west.

 

[Milliardo]

That is what puzzled me towards Protestant Christians. Why do they use the Jewish canon who reject Jesus as their canon for the OT?

I will echo my puzzlement as well over this, since it is strange that Protestants are ironically using an anti-Christian Old Testament canon, made for the purpose of separating Judaism and Christianity. Jamnia was the Jewish council that forever separated the two. Early Christians continued to use the Septuagint over the shorter Jewish canon after this.

 

[Janet_S]

Exceelnt all in one resource but it contain many of the arguments we already posted I am afriad our protestant brethren will not believe an article unless it is written by superpose William Webster or Geisler or John MacArhur et al. Unless it is written by their hack apologist they don’t give it the light of day. That is unfortuanate because there is another side of the story that is quite convincing an is more accurate of the thoughts of majority of the church during the first millinium especially in the west.

I agree with you. Once they figure out the point of the article, they will never take the time to read it. Their minds are set.

Did anyone listen to the Peter Ruckman/Karl Keating debate and Ruckman’s Protestant defense of the canon?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2073094&postcount=27

I realize Ruckman is a bit of a nut (I am sure Kaycee agrees), but his defense of the canon of Scripture is mathematical. He says he can prove all the OT books belong in the canon because of the number of prophecies in the OT that were fulfilled in the NT.

I am just wondering, how many different approaches are there for Protestants to defend the canon? It seems they will defend it any way they can using any source that agrees with them as long as they avoid saying (what we Catholics say) that we know the canon of Scripture is correct because an infallible Church, led by the Holy Spirit said it is so.

For the Protestant knows if they ever find themselves defending the canon of Scripture from this vantage point (an infallible Church says so), they cease to be Protestant.

 

[kaycee]

Hippo and Carthage are binding is it were not the 27 NT text would not be binding for use of the liturgy for Christian worship. The Church affirms this by citing the previous Council of Hippo and Carthage in the Council of Trent.

Hippon and Carthage were not binding! It sure seems that Seripando, Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes, knew this decision wasn’t binding and didn’t feel they needed to follow this “judgment of the churches”

Well, this is the situation. There was a group of scholars at the Council of Trent that were considered fairly knowledgeable on this issue. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin is worth quoting at length:

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Clearly Hippo and Carthage were not binding! How could this group of scholars be AT the council of Trent arguing for Jerome’s Canon if it were binding?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hippon and Carthage were not binding! It sure seems that Seripando, Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes, knew this decision wasn’t binding and didn’t feel they needed to follow this “judgment of the churches”

Well, this is the situation. There was a group of scholars at the Council of Trent that were considered fairly knowledgeable on this issue. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin is worth quoting at length:

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Clearly Hippo and Carthage were not binding! How could this group of scholars be AT the council of Trent arguing for Jerome’s Canon if it were binding?

They were binding because they were affirmed in the Council of Florence 100 before the Council of Trent.

Second Jerome is not the Pope at the time. It was Pope Damascus who affirmed in union with the rest of th Catholic Church at the time. Jerome recanted like I said before but you said you didn’t. I affirmed what I have said.

You cannot use the opinions of those ECF who did not held them binding. The Church! The Magisterium at the affirmed them.

Find me a Bible prior to the Council of Trent that did not contain the 7 Deutrocanonical Books. Believe me, you won’t find it. You will NOT find a Christian Bible prior to the Council of Trent that omitted them.

 

[TheApologist]

It sure seems that Seripando, Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes, knew this decision wasn’t binding and didn’t feel they needed to follow this “judgment of the churches”

I thought we already affirmed that Ximenes did NOT disapprove of the deuteros or leave them out of his commentary.

He disapproved of pseudo-deuteros(Assuming that Nancie read the commentary correctly). You cannot use him as an example of going against the Church.

By the way, if you use such arguments, then you could say since the Arian controversy(I think that’s what its called) went against Church judgement, then the Church couldn’t have been correct. This is nonsense.

When one does not recognize the Church as the supreme authority, they are not speaking Truth!

 

[JoeyWarren]

72 books mathematically is a better fit then 66.

72 divided by the number of hours in a day equals the Trinity.

72 divided by the number of the days of creations yields the number of Tribes of Israel and the number of the Original Apostles.

Protestants took 6 out. That left 66. now concatenate 66 with the 6, you get 666…

 

[Wisdom]

I will echo my puzzlement as well over this, since it is strange that Protestants are ironically using an anti-Christian Old Testament canon, made for the purpose of separating Judaism and Christianity. Jamnia was the Jewish council that forever separated the two. Early Christians continued to use the Septuagint over the shorter Jewish canon after this.

Only one correction here we should not buy into protestant apologist false assertion that Jamnia was a Jewish council it was not. Jamnia was a very small school run by a handful of Jewish rabbis which had escaped the destruction of Jerusalem there was no official decree by Judaism here but a mere opinion of a few Jews and was not well represented of Judaism as it existed in the Temple days of Christ which of course included Christian Jews, Essene Jews, Diaspora Jews, Saducee Jews and Pharisee Jews etc all Jews who had differnet canons from each other and represent a different form of Judaism than the one reprsented at the school of Jamnia which is not the council of Jamnia as there was no such thing.

 

[Wisdom]

Hippon and Carthage were not binding! It sure seems that Seripando, Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes, knew this decision wasn’t binding and didn’t feel they needed to follow this “judgment of the churches”

Well, this is the situation. There was a group of scholars at the Council of Trent that were considered fairly knowledgeable on this issue. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin is worth quoting at length:

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome …

Boy your ignorance of how Catholicism works and how early christianty worked is glaring obvious with statements such as these. The african councils were most assuredly binding as all bibles in the west were made to follow the decrees of the binding councils of Hippo and Carthage. If you assertion is true than you must take the postion of Luther to be consistent not only is the OT not binding but so it the NT thefefore he was correct in casting out the uncertain status of the NT dueteros James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. The distinction which you have failed to make correctly is not one of binding or not binding as they were binding and the regular fedei. However they were not a ecunemical council and could be disagreed upon in the East. So you will see more objection in the East concerning the canon than in the West. However remember this the Reformers were in the West and were under the Jurisdiction of the Pope thus the binding councils affected them.

One must remember we have catholic clergy in this present day and age that dissent on the regular fedei of the church concerning artificial birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, condoms etc Yet they are catholic even though they go against regular fedei of church teaching of traditional catholic teaching that has always been officially one way. One must remeber after Pope Paul VI affirmed the regular teaching of the church regarding contraception in human vitae the entire council of Denmarks Bishops dissented to the official ruling of the Pope. So in our modern times we have examples of official dissedence to official catholic teaching that was binding. This (dissedence to the regular teaching of the church) is what we find periodically in the canon as well and since unless a ecunemical council declares such things infalliable ex-cathedra with the theat of anathema one does not get excunmicated despite dissedence. So you really don’t shut up dissendence until something like this is declared.

It was not till Trent did this threat indeed kick in. But just like the regular teaching of the trinity was continuous until Nicea and did not just begin there the threat of anathema did not kick in until 300 years after Christ. The trinity was the regular fedei of the church from the time of the apostles till Nicea however the ecunemical council with threat of anathema did not kick in until hundreds of years later the same is applied to scripture. All the dissendents appeal to the opinion of Jerome and not the regular practice of the church or its councils even they would acknowledge there is a difference as they note in their dissent per the opinion of Jerome this is said not the judgement of the church which rules this. Big difference for catholics but no difference for protestants as they constantly appeal to the opinion of man. Which brings us to final question all this haggling over councils is just a techniqal glich for protestatns as they know Trent had the final word and they still dissent so in realtiy it would not matter if Hippo and Carthage were ecunemical and had the threat of anathama attached to it because they object to the Council which includes all those things they pretend are important to them.

 

[Wisdom]

Boy your ignorance of how Catholicism works and how early christianty worked is glaring obvious with statements such as these. The african councils were most assuredly binding as all bibles in the west were made to follow the decrees of the binding councils of Hippo and Carthage. If you assertion is true than you must take the postion of Luther to be consistent not only is the OT not binding but so it the NT thefefore he was correct in casting out the uncertain status of the NT dueteros James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. The distinction which you have failed to make correctly is not one of binding or not binding as they were binding and the regular fedei. However they were not a ecunemical council and could be disagreed upon in the East. So you will see more objection in the East concerning the canon than in the West. However remember this the Reformers were in the West and were under the Jurisdiction of the Pope thus the binding councils affected them.

One must remember we have catholic clergy in this present day and age that dissent on the regular fedei of the church concerning artificial birth control, celibacy, women’s ordination, condoms etc Yet they are catholic even though they go against regular fedei of church teaching of traditional catholic teaching that has always been officially one way. One must remeber after Pope Paul VI affirmed the regular teaching of the church regarding contraception in human vitae the entire council of Denmarks Bishops dissented to the official ruling of the Pope. So in our modern times we have examples of official dissedence to official catholic teaching that was binding. This (dissedence to the regular teaching of the church) is what we find periodically in the canon as well and since unless a ecunemical council declares such things infalliable ex-cathedra with the theat of anathema one does not get excunmicated despite dissedence. So you really don’t shut up dissendence until something like this is declared.

It was not till Trent did this threat indeed kick in. But just like the regular teaching of the trinity was continuous until Nicea and did not just begin there the threat of anathema did not kick in until 300 years after Christ. The trinity was the regular fedei of the church from the time of the apostles till Nicea however the ecunemical council with threat of anathema did not kick in until hundreds of years later the same is applied to scripture. All the dissendents appeal to the opinion of Jerome and not the regular practice of the church or its councils even they would acknowledge there is a difference as they note in their dissent per the opinion of Jerome this is said not the judgement of the church which rules this. Big difference for catholics but no difference for protestants as they constantly appeal to the opinion of man. Which brings us to final question all this haggling over councils is just a techniqal glich for protestatns as they know Trent had the final word and they still dissent so in realtiy it would not matter if Hippo and Carthage were ecunemical and had the threat of anathama attached to it because they object to the Council of Trent which includes all those things they pretend are important to them.