Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, by William Webster
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

From the above article, the author states:
“The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.”

Why appeal to the “authority” of Jerome (and further along in the article appeal to the “authority” of other Catholics) and ignore the Church councils? The Councils of Carthage and Hippo were local North African Church councils in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, so they were authoritative. The Council of Florence was an ecumenical council binding on the whole Church. Why are the decisions of these councils subordinate to the opinion of Jerome and other Catholics he mentions? Does the author appeal to Jerome’s “authority” when Jerome writes about the perpetual virginity of Mary? I doubt it.

Also, keep in mind that Jerome did include the 7 deuterocanonical books in his Vulgate translation of the Bible, and he did come to accept these 7 books as canonical. You can read for yourself Jerome’s Vulgate Prologues at this website:

Bombaxo (by Kevin P Edgecomb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian)
bombaxo.com/blog/?cat=6
Jerome discusses the deuterocanonical books in the following Prologues:

Helmeted Introduction to Kings
Book of Judith
Book of Tobias
Books of Solomon
Book of Esther
Book of Daniel
 
This is from the Bombaxo website that shows a Chart of Historically Held Biblical Canons. Only the Luther and King James versions of the Bible exclude the 7 deutercanonical books (Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I & II Maccabees) included in the Vulgate canon. Luther’s Bible and the KJV consider these 7 books as “apocrypha.” All the other ancient Churches’ versions of the Bible (Greek, Coptic, Ethiopiac, Syriac, Slavonic/Russian, Armenian) include these 7 books.
bombaxo.com/canonchart.html

All the ancient Churches listed above accept the 7 books as canonical because of history and tradition. This gives further evidence that the 7 deutercanonical books were accepted by the Church before the Council of Trent since none of these other ancient Churches accept Trent as being authoritative.
 
Janet_S said:
Yes, the canon (NT & OT) was dogmatically defined at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. However, before the Council of Trent, the following Church Councils
gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT identical to the list later approved by the Council of Trent:
Council of Hippo (393)
Council of Carthage (397)
Council of Carthage (419)
Council of Florence (1441)

No Church Council documents from the 4th century onward list a canon that exclude the 7 deutercanonical books.

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

II. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)

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. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
Click to expand...
**You do understand from the PLAIN testimony of hundreds that the Canon had 2 tiers, God-Breathed scripture and Deut’s, which were allowed to read but were not inspired.

So until it was defined dogmatically, the majority belief held by Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church in the non inspiration of the Deut’s was a personal opinion?

The day after Trent defined it dogmatically, it was under penalty of loss of salvation to hold such beliefs?**
 
kaycee said:
**You do understand from the PLAIN testimony of hundreds that the Canon had 2 tiers, God-Breathed scripture and Deut’s, which were allowed to read but were not inspired.

So until it was defined dogmatically, the majority belief held by Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church in the non inspiration of the Deut’s was a personal opinion?

The day after Trent defined it dogmatically, it was under penalty of loss of salvation to hold such beliefs?**
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is conservative in its decisions, not innovative. At Trent, there was no change in Church teaching about the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. The main object of the Council of Trent was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the teachings and beliefs of the Protestants. One of these concerns was the canon of Scripture which had been called into question by Luther.

Regarding the canon, the Council of Trent in the 16th century says nothing different from the Council of Florence in the 15th century. The Council of Florence lists the 7 deutercanonical books as inspired and makes no distinction from the books Protestants accept. Neither Council documents discuss the 2-tier inspiration you describe. Here is part of what these Councils say regarding Scripture. You can read the rest at these links:

Council of Florence:
dailycatholic.org/history/17ecum11.htm
Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Council of Trent:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM
It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.
It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
They are the following:
 
Janet_S said:
The Catholic Church is conservative in its decisions, not innovative. At Trent, there was no change in Church teaching about the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. The main object of the Council of Trent was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the teachings and beliefs of the Protestants. One of these concerns was the canon of Scripture which had been called into question by Luther.

Regarding the canon, the Council of Trent in the 16th century says nothing different from the Council of Florence in the 15th century. The Council of Florence lists the 7 deutercanonical books as inspired and makes no distinction from the books Protestants accept. Neither Council documents discuss the 2-tier inspiration you describe. Here is part of what these Councils say regarding Scripture. You can read the rest at these links:

Council of Florence:
dailycatholic.org/history/17ecum11.htm
Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Council of Trent:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM
It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.
Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.
It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]
They are the following:
Click to expand...
So being dogmatically defined at the late 4th century, the majority of the church including Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church who held to the non inspiration of the Deut’s
were in fact anathemetized? :eek:
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Council of Hippo;

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…
and here is my source:

home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
Click to expand...
Manny, there is a part in one of those councils that they say that they await for confirmation of this canon by the TRANSMARINE CHURCH. That is so interesting, as the transmarine Church is ROME, because it was accross the mediterranean, that they would not dare to do ANYTHING without Rome’s approval.

Any way,

Blessings,

E.C.
 
kaycee said:
**You do understand from the PLAIN testimony of hundreds that the Canon had 2 tiers, God-Breathed scripture and Deut’s, which were allowed to read but were not inspired.

So until it was defined dogmatically, the majority** belief held by Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church in the non inspiration of the Deut’s was a personal opinion?

The day after Trent defined it dogmatically, it was under penalty of loss of salvation to hold such beliefs?
Click to expand...
(emphasis added by me)

KAYCEE, you are really MISLEADING by saying “the majority”, such IS NOT true. The OVERWHELMING majority of popes, doctors, and bishops believed them to be Canonical.

Starting from the biggest doctor of the Church of them all, St. Augustine!.

Many blessings,

E.C.
 
kaycee said:
So being dogmatically defined at the late 4th century, the majority of the church including Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church who held to the non inspiration of the Deut’s
were in fact anathemetized? :eek:
Click to expand...
This is from the Council of Carthage in AD 419. You can read through this, but there is no reference to the 2-tier inspiration you are talking about. There is no distinction between the deutercanonical books and the books Protestants accept today.

Trent is not the big change in the canon you claim it is.

Another question for you. Why do the Orthodox Churches (who do not accept the decisions of Trent) accept the deuterocanonical books in their canon?

Council of Carthage (AD 419)
newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item , that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.

The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.
Let this be sent to our brother
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
 
"Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, by William Webster
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

From the above article, the author states:
“The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.”

I THINK William Webster KNOWS nothing about history.
  1. Jerome RECANTED on his beliefs about the deuterocanonicals, after POPE Damasus approved the Canon to be followed.
Thus Jerome said:

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

So JEROME recognized that the decision about the Canon was UP to the CHURCH, not to him.
  1. Regarding Rufinus, well Jerome calls him a “foolish sycophant”
  2. Is Webster SAYING that Athanasius and Jerome always MAINTAINED a CANON as the one Protestant follow TODAY???
If this is SO, this is WRONG, as Both Athanasius and Jerome DID consider BARUC as INSPIRED and undoubtedly part of the CANON!.

So, where does then the Protestant CANON of the O.T. comes as it is known today (i.e., without Baruc). It DOES NOT COME from the early days of Jerome, or from Athanasius, who did include BARUC, it COMES from MARTIN LUTHER who decided to follow the decision of the JEWS, WHO rejected Christ, rather than the decision of the Christian Church from the EARLIEST days.

Blessings,

E.C.
 
kaycee said:
So being dogmatically defined at the late 4th century, the majority of the church including Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church who held to the non inspiration of the Deut’s
were in fact anathemetized? :eek:
Click to expand...
This is from this article:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

The word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it.
 
El_camino said:
"Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation, by William Webster
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

From the above article, the author states:
“The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.”

I THINK William Webster KNOWS nothing about history.
  1. Jerome RECANTED on his beliefs about the deuterocanonicals, after POPE Damasus approved the Canon to be followed.
Thus Jerome said:

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

So JEROME recognized that the decision about the Canon was UP to the CHURCH, not to him.
  1. Regarding Rufinus, well Jerome calls him a “foolish sycophant”
  2. Is Webster SAYING that Athanasius and Jerome always MAINTAINED a CANON as the one Protestant follow TODAY???
If this is SO, this is WRONG, as Both Athanasius and Jerome DID consider BARUC as INSPIRED and undoubtedly part of the CANON!.

So, where does then the Protestant CANON of the O.T. comes as it is known today (i.e., without Baruc). It DOES NOT COME from the early days of Jerome, or from Athanasius, who did include BARUC, it COMES from MARTIN LUTHER who decided to follow the decision of the JEWS, WHO rejected Christ, rather than the decision of the Christian Church from the EARLIEST days.

Blessings,

E.C.
Click to expand...
Read Jeromes Prologues to Judith and Tobit on the Bombaxo.com website mentioned in a previous post. Jerome acknowledges that he is following the directives of the bishops by including the deuterocanonicals in the OT canon.

Regarding the books Baruch and Lamentations–both books at one time were included in the book of Jeremiah.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article covering the Canon of the OT. Anyone who is interested in the controversy might want to read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
 
kaycee said:
**You do understand from the PLAIN testimony of hundreds that the Canon had 2 tiers, God-Breathed scripture and Deut’s, which were allowed to read but were not inspired.

So until it was defined dogmatically, the majority belief held by Popes, Bishops, and Doctors of the church in the non inspiration of the Deut’s was a personal opinion?

The day after Trent defined it dogmatically, it was under penalty of loss of salvation to hold such beliefs?**
Click to expand...
Here are a few more questions for you, kaycee. Regarding the NT canon. Do you believe that the 2-tier canon applies to the controversial books of the NT as well (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 of John, Jude, and Revelation)?

Why don’t you criticize the Council of Trent for not differentiating between those NT books always accepted by the Church and those books whose canonicity at times had been questioned by the Church?

It seems like, from your reasoning, you shouldn’t have those 7 NT books in your Bible either.
 
kaycee said:
Is the belief that the deuts are not inspired directly against dogmatic faith? Yes or No.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. An Catholic theologian can say in his personal opinion these** books are not inspired**.

that doesn’t make him a heretic. Like I said before, when the Canon of Scripture was set up, there were some bishops who did not think the Book of Revelation should be part of the canon…

The reason for using the deutrocanonical books as part of the canon is because it has been used by the Early Christians since the time of Jesus Christ himself. 2/3 of the NT quotes from these books, when Christian had a large number of Gentile Greek speaking converts, the books became widely used. It was even used by the Jews until 90 A.D during the Council of Jamnia. The reason why the Jews rejected it is because it was widely used by the Christians, who they consider threaten their own religion.

The Jews already lost their Rabbinical priesthood since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, and they were replaced by Rabbis. In order to preserve the Jewish culture, only Tanakh text or Hebrew Text are only the part of their canon.

It was not until the Reformations that Protestant leaders reject the 7 OT Books. They reject it because it did not fit their beliefs, since they throw away all of Catholic beliefs (except Scripture) to include purgatory since the Book of Maccabees contains prayer for the dead.
 
kaycee said:
Is the belief that the deuts are not inspired directly against dogmatic faith? Yes or No.
Click to expand...
Oy vay…:banghead: :banghead: 🤷

John Calvin wrote and preached that the damned in hell:eek: “walk forever over & upon the bodies of the little babies who, not being among the elect, are sent there”.
I am assuming that you do not believe that ?? What does that make you???
That was Calvin’s opinion.
Baptism by immersion was the opinion of John Wesley.
Gregory held the opinion that the Deuterocanonicals were “less inspired” than the other books of Scripture.
Martin Lutherhad the opinion that James & Revelation were not only uninspired, but contrary to the gospel.
I say it again: You know what they say about opinions??? I can’t quote:bigyikes: it; I’d get myself :bigyikes: suspended if I did… Let’s just say,:doh2: “Everybody’s got one”. :whistle:
Mannyfit75 said:
No it isn’t. An Catholic theologian can say in his personal opinion these** books are not inspired**.

that doesn’t make him a heretic. Like I said before, when the Canon of Scripture was set up, there were some bishops who did not think the Book of Revelation should be part of the canon…

The reason for using the deutrocanonical books as part of the canon is because it has been used by the Early Christians since the time of Jesus Christ himself. 2/3 of the NT quotes from these books, when Christian had a large number of Gentile Greek speaking converts, the books became widely used. It was even used by the Jews until 90 A.D during the Council of Jamnia. The reason why the Jews rejected it is because it was widely used by the Christians, who they consider threaten their own religion.

The Jews already lost their Rabbinical priesthood since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, and they were replaced by Rabbis. In order to preserve the Jewish culture, only Tanakh text or Hebrew Text are only the part of their canon.

It was not until the Reformations that Protestant leaders reject the 7 OT Books. They reject it because it did not fit their beliefs, since they throw away all of Catholic beliefs (except Scripture) to include purgatory since the Book of Maccabees contains prayer for the dead.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Manny. The voice of sweet reason, in the face of no inconsiderable irritation…
 
Mannyfit75 said:
No it isn’t. An Catholic theologian can say in his personal opinion these** books are not inspired**.

that doesn’t make him a heretic. Like I said before, when the Canon of Scripture was set up, there were some bishops who did not think the Book of Revelation should be part of the canon…

The reason for using the deutrocanonical books as part of the canon is because it has been used by the Early Christians since the time of Jesus Christ himself. 2/3 of the NT quotes from these books, when Christian had a large number of Gentile Greek speaking converts, the books became widely used. It was even used by the Jews until 90 A.D during the Council of Jamnia. The reason why the Jews rejected it is because it was widely used by the Christians, who they consider threaten their own religion.

The Jews already lost their Rabbinical priesthood since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, and they were replaced by Rabbis. In order to preserve the Jewish culture, only Tanakh text or Hebrew Text are only the part of their canon.

It was not until the Reformations that Protestant leaders reject the 7 OT Books. They reject it because it did not fit their beliefs, since they throw away all of Catholic beliefs (except Scripture) to include purgatory since the Book of Maccabees contains prayer for the dead.
Click to expand...
Really! No problem believing the deuts to be non inspired! :eek: You might want to run that by the magisterium again.

Would this statement by Cardinal Catejan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, be considered orthodox or heretical?

“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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.”

Clearly 2 levels of Canon.

The Council of Trent

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent…It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books recxeived by this council. They are the following: of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of the Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticcles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

**If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety **and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 ed.), pp. 17-18).
 
kaycee said:
Is the belief that the deuts are not inspired directly against dogmatic faith? Yes or No.
Click to expand...
Now that the dogma has been inambigously defined it is!. Trent defined the dogma inambiguously although previous synods had already officially defined the cannon. But I don’t know of anyone who has, without being a heretic or a very confused Christian (wether Catholic or protestant), denied the canon after Trent.

Same with the Trinity. Many people were against the TRINITY until it was inambiguously defined on the 4th century. Some who were against, because they knew where the truth was, recanted after the dogma was defined in the 4th century.

Blessings,

E.C.
 
Kaycee, please cite a Church Council which promoted the Protestant canon as opposed to the Catholic canon.
 
Janet_S said:
Read Jeromes Prologues to Judith and Tobit on the Bombaxo.com website mentioned in a previous post. Jerome acknowledges that he is following the directives of the bishops by including the deuterocanonicals in the OT canon.

Regarding the books Baruch and Lamentations–both books at one time were included in the book of Jeremiah.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article covering the Canon of the OT. Anyone who is interested in the controversy might want to read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
Click to expand...
So in conclusion:
  1. Jerome recognizes who decides what the canon is, that is the CHURCH, obviously inspired by the H.S., not his own opinions. This is weird, because many protestants appeal to Jerome to decide what the canon is, when not even himself appealed to himself.
Jerome said it himself “I follow the judgment of the Church”.
  1. I guess then JEROME, and Athanasius as well, DID include BARUC as inspired. So the protestants, because they are missing Baruc, do not follow neither Jerome, nor Athanasius. Which canon then do they follow? The Hebrew Canon? NO! as the Hebrew Canon does not include the N.T. In fact, in Jamnia, where the deuterocanonicals were rejected by the Jews in 100 A.D., they also rejected the N.T.
Protestants follow a CANON of scripture that had never existed before, selected by Martin Luther.

Blessings,

E.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top