Did Catholics add 7 books to Bible in 1546?

[Genesis315]

Here is a Christian prophecy from Wisdom (the author is relaying what those without wisdom say and do):

Wis. 2:12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father. 17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.

 

[Lampo]

This thread is very timely. We’ve just been discussing the Canon at my Missouri Synod Lutheran school. And I have a timeline we were forced to study and memorize. I know there were some problems and my teacher constantly said over and over again “The Apocryphal books are useful but they were never considered part of Scripture” Is there any evidence before the 4th century that proves that the deuterocanonical books were recognized as part of Scripture? Besides that Jesus quoted them?
By the way, here’s the timeline we were forced to memorize. Just thought you could critique and offer your insight on that too.

Canon Timeline

 -1450 BC: Moses writes Pentateauch
 - 425 BC: Last book of Old Testament (Malachi) is written
 - 30 AD: Jesus dies
 - 90 AD: Council of Jamnia affirms Old Testament Canon
 - 95 AD: John writes Revelation
 - 110 AD: Most of the New Testament Canon completed
 - 140 AD: Marcian complies "formal" canon
 - 200 AD: FORMAL Canon circulated 
 - 332 AD: Bibles comissioned + circulated by Constantine

Oh and something else I thought I might add. These are the categories of consideration for inclusion in the Canon we were to study. Offer your own opinion on this also.

    -*Homo legomena*: accepted as inspired
    -*Ante legomena*: not immeditaely accepted
    -Heretical: never accepted
    -Apocryphal books

I find this fascinating! Would someone much smarter than I please compile the Catholic equivalent to this timeline and categories of consideration for inclusion in the Canon?

 

[Saint_Michael]

Do Jews today use the apocryphal books in their Torah? Or do they use what would be more the Protestant version of the Old Testament?

 

[jmcrae]

This thread is very timely. We’ve just been discussing the Canon at my Missouri Synod Lutheran school. And I have a timeline we were forced to study and memorize. I know there were some problems and my teacher constantly said over and over again “The Apocryphal books are useful but they were never considered part of Scripture” Is there any evidence before the 4th century that proves that the deuterocanonical books were recognized as part of Scripture? Besides that Jesus quoted them?
By the way, here’s the timeline we were forced to memorize. Just thought you could critique and offer your insight on that too.

Canon Timeline

 -1450 BC: Moses writes Pentateauch
 - 425 BC: Last book of Old Testament (Malachi) is written
 - 30 AD: Jesus dies
 - 90 AD: Council of Jamnia affirms Old Testament Canon
 - 95 AD: John writes Revelation
 - 110 AD: Most of the New Testament Canon completed
 - 140 AD: Marcian complies "formal" canon
 - 200 AD: FORMAL Canon circulated 
 - 332 AD: Bibles comissioned + circulated by Constantine

Oh and something else I thought I might add. These are the categories of consideration for inclusion in the Canon we were to study. Offer your own opinion on this also.

    -*Homo legomena*: accepted as inspired
    -*Ante legomena*: not immeditaely accepted
    -Heretical: never accepted
    -Apocryphal books

I’d make a few changes and additions to this, just based on my own research (which is rather haphazard, I’m afraid, but I’m certain that my sources are at least mostly reliable.)

-1446 BC: Moses begins to write the Pentateuch. (It was probably completed by the Levitical community, not later than 1380 BC, but there are events included in it that Moses didn’t survive to see that could only have occurred after his death in 1406 BC.)

(One thing I’d like to do at some point is a more detailed survey of the writing and writers of the Old Testament.)

 - 425 BC: Last book of Old Testament (Malachi) is written

• 250 BC: 46 books of the Old Testament are translated into Greek by 72 Jewish scholars working at the Library of Alexandria, and are promulgated to the Diaspora Jews, including those living under Roman occupation (which would have included the ancestors of Jesus). This was the edition used by the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. The Sadducees used the Pentateuch, in its original Hebrew. (They considered the Pharisees to be “liberals” because they used the 46-book canon, and because they permitted people to read the Bible in Greek.) The Palestinian canon did not yet exist; this was a later development.
  • 30 AD: Jesus dies (?)
• 50 AD: St. Paul begins to write letters from prison to the various Dioceses under his jurisdiction.
• 60-90 AD: The Gospels and other books of the New Testament begin to be written down.
• 70 AD: The Temple at Jerusalem is destroyed, and modern synagogue Judaism begins.

80 AD: The Christian community is expelled/excommunicated from Judaism, and becomes a separate religion.

 - Some time after 80 AD: the Palestinian canon is developed by  Palestinian Jews, for use in Jerusalem.

 - 95 AD: John writes Revelation

 - 110 AD: St. Ignatius of Antioch begins to quote portions of the New Testament in his writings. 

140- 387 AD - various canons of the New Testament begin to be circulated locally in various different places. 

 - 332 AD: Bibles comissioned + circulated by Constantine

• 386 AD: St. Jerome commissioned to make a universal translation of the Scriptures into “vulgate” Latin by Pope Damasus
• 405 AD - Final 27-book canon of the New Testament defined, closed, and promulgated to the Universal Church by Pope Innocent I.

1529 - Martin Luther questions the 46-book canon of the Old Testament, and proposes to replace it with the 39-book Palestinian canon.

1546 AD: The Council of Trent responds to this proposal by reaffirming the 46-book canon of the Old Testament, and by defining and closing the canon of the Old Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

Do Jews today use the apocryphal books in their Torah? Or do they use what would be more the Protestant version of the Old Testament?

The Torah is the five books of Moses - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

I can’t remember off hand what they name the Wisdom or the Prophets, but there are different canons of these, and not all Jews use them all. Some Jews use only the Torah, others use all three sections, and some use the Torah plus some other books, but not all. It depends on the Jew.

By the way, just as a point of order, the Deuterocanonical books are not “apocryphal.” Apocryphal books would be books like the “Gospel according to Judas” and stuff like that, - made-up silly stuff that takes its “inspiration” from the Bible, but really has nothing to do with God; it’s basically just rather wild fiction.

 

[Saint_Michael]

The Torah is the five books of Moses - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

I can’t remember off hand what they name the Wisdom or the Prophets, but there are different canons of these, and not all Jews use them all. Some Jews use only the Torah, others use all three sections, and some use the Torah plus some other books, but not all. It depends on the Jew.

By the way, just as a point of order, the Deuterocanonical books are not “apocryphal.” Apocryphal books would be books like the “Gospel according to Judas” and stuff like that, - made-up silly stuff that takes its “inspiration” from the Bible, but really has nothing to do with God; it’s basically just rather wild fiction.

I think that’s the psuedopygrapha (spelling), the Apocryphal books are the deuterocanonicals.

So do Jews use the derterocanonicals? Or does the Holy book they use typically look like the Palestinian Canon the Protestants use? This would greatly help me since Jews are the authority on the Old Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

I think that’s the psuedopygrapha (spelling), the Apocryphal books are the deuterocanonicals.

Those are Protestant definitions. What religion are you?

So do Jews use the derterocanonicals? Or does the Holy book they use typically look like the Palestinian Canon the Protestants use?

Some do, some don’t. They really don’t have an established universal canon “for all Jews.” They also don’t have a “holy book” as such - rather, the more liberal ones have libraries of Old Testament books (kind of like the Navarre series or the Ignatius Study Bible series), and the more conservative ones actually still use scrolls. The number of books varies from synagogue to synagogue.

This would greatly help me since Jews are the authority on the Old Testament.

Jesus is the ultimate authority on the Old Testament, and He passed His authority to Peter, who passed it down through the line of succession of the Bishops of Rome. That’s why the Council of Trent (but not Martin Luther) had the authority to define and close the canon of the Old Testament in 1546 AD.

There has been no centralized Jewish authority since the destruction of the Temple, in 70 AD.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “toss it into the Elbe” river.

The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (“chief books”) Hebrews, James (“epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

{see also Revelation 5:8}

Tobit 12:15I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

1 Corinthians 15:29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

2 Maccabees 12:44For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can’t benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The “penance interpretation” is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

Hebrews 11:35Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

2 Maccabees 7:29Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.

{a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}

Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the “Apocrypha,” doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were “demoted” by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs.

-- Quoted from The Catholic Apologetics Network.​

 

[Mystophilus]

• 250 BC: 46 books of the Old Testament are translated into Greek by 72 Jewish scholars working at the Library of Alexandria

The LXX most probably began with 5 books only (the Pentateuch). This could have happened anywhere between 285 and 247, but is popularly supposed to have been in 282. The remainder were translated over the following 200+ years, by various translators, and the collections, i.e., the exact list of books, varied.

386 AD: St. Jerome commissioned to make a universal translation of the Scriptures into “vulgate” Latin by Pope Damasus

The Biblia Sacra Uulgata, ‘disseminated sacred Bible’, is a translation into the common language of the western end of the Roman Empire, as Greek has been the common language of the eastern end of the Mediterranead world since Alexander, and so the east have already had the full Scriptures for centuries.

405 AD - Final 27-book canon of the New Testament defined, closed, and promulgated to the Universal Church by Pope Innocent I.

… this canon, having been defined in 367 by Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, is thereafter widely accepted, although the C7th Catalogue of Sixty Canonical Books does omit the Revelation.

1529 - Martin Luther questions the 46-book canon of the Old Testament, and proposes to replace it with the 39-book Palestinian canon.

The proposed canon is subsequently accepted by the Protestant churches, and the exclusion of the ‘apocryphal’ texts becomes firmer over time.

1546 AD: The Council of Trent responds to this proposal by reaffirming the 46-book canon of the Old Testament, and by defining and closing the canon of the Old Testament.

The Council anathematised those who refused to read the texts which they listed. As such, they set a canon, but did not ‘close’ it, because it could, in theory, be expanded at a later date.

 

[DianJo]

Here are a couple of links about that “Council of Jamnia” by Steve Ray. It wasn’t a council. This article explains it. So, it’s kind of confusing to always hear of this “council.”

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

And here is another concerning the the 7 books. It’s called 5 Myths about 7 Books. It was in Envoy magazine.

www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Dave Armstrong also has great info on the subject of the canon but I don’t think I had it saved. You could to his site and find it, I’m sure. If anyone has this link please post it, I’d like to get again.

 

[demerzel85]

… this canon, having been defined in 367 by Athanasius, t

Actually no true. Individual Bishops, Archbishops, Primate, Cardinals, and/or Patriarchs do not have the same authority as the Pope. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator and so even after the statement of Athanasius he had the right to dismiss and endorse it. In AD382, Pope Damasus I in the Council of Rome confirmed the Canon. Regarless whether it was a Church Father, the final say lay with the See of St Peter.

Bringing in the actions of Martin Luther with regard to the Canon of Scripture is of no consequence of what the Successors of St Peter have defined. Martin Luther never have and never will have the same authority as the Pope. All Martin Luther did was try to be a smarty pants and disagree with the Canon that had been used for more than 1000 years, and say that a Jewish Council that occurred after the Resurrection has authority over the Church.

 

[Mystophilus]

Actually not true. Individual Bishops, Archbishops, Primate, Cardinals, and/or Patriarchs do not have the same authority as the Pope. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator and so even after the statement of Athanasius he had the right to dismiss and endorse it. In AD382, Pope Damasus I in the Council of Rome confirmed the Canon. Regarless whether it was a Church Father, the final say lay with the See of St Peter.

You are projecting a C21st Roman Catholic view onto C4th Christianity.

According to the 325 Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, “The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.”

Similarly, if you read the synodal letter of the 381 Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, you will see that the bishop of Rome did not speak for the Greek-speaking churches.

This is even more clear in the jurisdictional comment of the 431 Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which stated, “None of the reverent bishops is to take possession of another province which has not been under his authority from the first or under that of his predecessors.”

However, reading the Orthodox view of that council will give you most accurate idea of how the Greek-speaking churches felt, and feel, about the idea of Papal Supremacy.

As regards the Council of Rome in 382, the Decretum Gelasianum asserts that Damasus I ratified the canon in Rome in 382, but that decretal is problematic itself. It now appears that the decretal was written in the early C6th, i.e., about 150 years after the events which it claims to describe. I have yet to locate any claim to have a document actually from that council. However, the mere fact that the Decretum Gelasianum was needed, in the early C6th, to define the canon for the Western churches, indicates that no previous pronouncement had achieved universal success in the West. Thus, whatever may have happened in 382, nothing stuck.

Martin Luther never had and never will have the same authority as the Pope.

This is undeniably true: in the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope has a great deal of authority, and Luther next to none; in the Lutheran Church, Luther has a great deal of authority, and the Pope next to none. Authority varies by location.

All Martin Luther did was try to be a smarty pants and disagree with the Canon that had been used for more than 1000 years, and say that a Jewish Council that occurred after the Resurrection has authority over the Church.

That is rather a harsh way of putting it, considering that Martin Luther was agreeing with Jerome (q.v. Jerome’s prologues in the Biblia Sacra Uulgata).

Consider Luther’s position: having found the Church unwilling to resolve the issues which he brought to its attention, he seceded. Having seceded, he needed to erect something as an authority above the ecclesiastical hierarchy: the Word of God was his best option. However, in order to do that, he had to ensure that there could be no charge of inauthenticity against any of the texts, and so he excised from the canon those about which Jerome had felt uncertain. He did not remove them from his church, but merely relegated them to the status which Jerome had recommended for them 1200 years earlier.

 

[demerzel85]

You are projecting a C21st Roman Catholic view onto C4th Christianity.

According to the 325 Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, “The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.”

Similarly, if you read the synodal letter of the 381 Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, you will see that the bishop of Rome did not speak for the Greek-speaking churches.

This is even more clear in the jurisdictional comment of the 431 Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which stated, “None of the reverent bishops is to take possession of another province which has not been under his authority from the first or under that of his predecessors.”

However, reading the Orthodox view of that council will give you most accurate idea of how the Greek-speaking churches felt, and feel, about the idea of Papal Supremacy.

Old argument actually. And if you read the documents properly the statements refer to the authority of a Bishop within his own diocese. It does not in any way dispute the Primacy of the See of St Peter. The early Christians believed that the Bishop of Rome had primacy over all the rest. When one brings up the views of the Orthodox Church, one has to take into account that the shism was more over politics than theology.

For what Early Christians say about the Primacy of the See of St Peter (and even way before the Council of Nicea) : scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[demerzel85]

This is undeniably true: in the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope has a great deal of authority, and Luther next to none; in the Lutheran Church, Luther has a great deal of authority, and the Pope next to none. Authority varies by location.

It is the Lord himself who gave St Peter the keys and the authority of binding and loosing has been passed down to his successors. The Pope has spiritual power that goes beyond the bounds of those who are only Catholics. Within the Catholic Church he doenst just have ‘a great deal of authority’. He has Supreme Authority.

Luther has a great deal of authority in the Lutheran Church? Well Luther did not have a single problem with Marian Doctrine. His followers do. Luther taught ‘once saved always saved’. Not all his followers believe that.

The Pope can teach infallible dogma. No one else can. And if one does not listen then they do not listen to the Lord himself either.

 

[demerzel85]

That is rather a harsh way of putting it, considering that Martin Luther was agreeing with Jerome (q.v. Jerome’s prologues in the Biblia Sacra Uulgata).

Consider Luther’s position: having found the Church unwilling to resolve the issues which he brought to its attention, he seceded. Having seceded, he needed to erect something as an authority above the ecclesiastical hierarchy: the Word of God was his best option. However, in order to do that, he had to ensure that there could be no charge of inauthenticity against any of the texts, and so he excised from the canon those about which Jerome had felt uncertain. He did not remove them from his church, but merely relegated them to the status which Jerome had recommended for them 1200 years earlier.

Well the product of the Deformation Era by the Protestants has been internal strife since every single person claims to infallibly know to interpret Sacred Scripture. The need of purgues to purify the followers only led to a darkening of the times and widespread persecution.

Claiming to be able to erect another hiearchical structure is claiming to have more authority than the Messiah himself and ignoring the prophesy that the Church will always be visible.

Protestants can base all they want on Scripture, but they will never be able to understand it. The fruits of using text that they themselves did not really understand are plain for all to see.

Luther and St Jerome? St Jerome had his opinions, but obeyed the Pope. Luther had his opinions and decided to become his own Pope.

 

[Mystophilus]

Old argument actually. And if you read the documents properly the statements refer to the authority of a Bishop within his own diocese. It does not in any way dispute the Primacy of the See of St Peter. The early Christians believed that the Bishop of Rome had primacy over all the rest.

“if you read the documents properly”: I love that argument! It impugns the ability of one’s correspondent, while failing to actually provide any evidence whatsoever of the validity of its own claims.

The issue is the authority of a bishop within his own see. While it is certainly true that a good many early Christian writers believed that the bishop of Rome had primacy over others, that does not equate to supremacy. As is stated in the ecumenical councils and the synodal letters, the bishop of Rome was not accepted as having a power which overruled that in another see. Thus, he was not a ‘supreme legislator’ for the Christian Church, but rather someone who could assist in the mediation of disputes between other bishops: first among equals, not Top Dog.

As such, going back to your original comment, Athanasius’ power and authority to set a canon in Greek-speaking North Africa was greater than that of the Pope. Damasus’ power, in respect to Athanasius’ announcement, affected only his own see, i.e., the Latin churches, and, as the Decretum Gelasianum demonstrates, that power was less than absolute.

 

[Mystophilus]

It is the Lord himself who gave St Peter the keys and the authority of binding and loosing has been passed down to his successors. The Pope has spiritual power that goes beyond the bounds of those who are only Catholics. Within the Catholic Church he doenst just have ‘a great deal of authority’. He has Supreme Authority.

Luther has a great deal of authority in the Lutheran Church? Well Luther did not have a single problem with Marian Doctrine. His followers do. Luther taught ‘once saved always saved’. Not all his followers believe that.

The Pope can teach infallible dogma. No one else can. And if one does not listen then they do not listen to the Lord himself either.

δωσω σοι τας κλειδας
Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone, never mentioning anything at all about successors. Then, as recorded in Mt 18:18, he gave the power of binding and losing to the disciples en masse, and Peter was neither the boss of the disciples, nor was he endowed with any dynasty. Therefore, a claim that a rejection of the authority of the Pope equates to a rejection of God is a claim that requires an extra-textual belief in the succession of Popes as having been sent by God, claiming that a dynasty was meant despite the singular pronoun, and an extra-textual belief in the teachers of all of the other Christian churches as having not been sent by God, claiming that the other disciples were only those disciples who followed Peter, contradicting Jesus’ prayer for church unity and Paul’s discussion of such divisiveness in 1 Co 1:10-17, and a denial of Roman Catholic Canon Law, as per my sig-line.

As for Luther, the central idea that he taught was the believer’s independence from ecclesiastical authority. The fact that his followers diverged from his own views is only proof of the success of that teaching.

The Pope’s power is limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Whether or not you like the fact, it remains true.

 

[Mystophilus]

St Jerome had his opinions, but obeyed the Pope. Luther had his opinions and decided to become his own Pope.

That’s good; I like it.

 

[demerzel85]

δωσω σοι τας κλειδας
Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone, never mentioning anything at all about successors. Then, as recorded in Mt 18:18, he gave the power of binding and losing to the disciples en masse, and Peter was neither the boss of the disciples, nor was he endowed with any dynasty. Therefore, a claim that a rejection of the authority of the Pope equates to a rejection of God is a claim that requires an extra-textual belief in the succession of Popes as having been sent by God, claiming that a dynasty was meant despite the singular pronoun, and an extra-textual belief in the teachers of all of the other Christian churches as having not been sent by God, claiming that the other disciples were only those disciples who followed Peter, contradicting Jesus’ prayer for church unity and Paul’s discussion of such divisiveness in 1 Co 1:10-17, and a denial of Roman Catholic Canon Law, as per my sig-line.

As for Luther, the central idea that he taught was the believer’s independence from ecclesiastical authority. The fact that his followers diverged from his own views is only proof of the success of that teaching.

The Pope’s power is limited to the Roman Catholic Church. Whether or not you like the fact, it remains true.

The quote from sacred scripture one has to fulfill the basic condition of continuity of scripture. Refer to scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html on what is taught about apostolic succession in the first place.

And well the fruits of what Luther taught can be seen. The followers do not even maintain unity.

No the Pope authority is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope has Supreme Authority over the Catholic Church (Latin Rite and other Eastern Rites in communion).

 

[Milliardo]

I saw the following statement on a Christian Apologetic website:

“In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches.”

See it at: carm.org/questions/canon.htm

Long and short of it–no. This is merely poor historical background. One who knows how the Bible came to be will not come to such a conclusion. The Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. thus pronounced:

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
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 (4 books)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books)
• Macchabees (2 books)
  The New Testament:
• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)
  Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] 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.

See the document here: newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm