Did Catholics add 7 books to Bible in 1546?

[jblake]

Ignatius:

Actually, it was the Protestants who removed them in the 18th century.

English Bibles that did not contain deuterocanonical books were common enough by 1650 for the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare that publication of the Bible without those books was a criminal offense. (BTW, the Anglican Canon is larger than the Catholic Canon.)

So the question really is, why did the protestants remove these books which were in every bible from the time of for nearly 2000 years?

a) 1500 years would be slightly closer to the mark;

b) Liturgical Protestant Churches retained the Deuterocanonical books for the Lectionary readings. Most other usage of the Dueterocanonical material faded away.

c) The non-Liturgical Protestant Churches explicitly rejected the Deuterocanonical material. Depending upon the specific church, this could have happened anytime between 1500 and 1900. The most common reason is that the Council of Jaminia defined the OT in AD 90 and the NT was defined back around 200 AD. (I’ve forgotten who/what they point to, for support for the NT Canon. Probably Marcion, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Turtullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.)

d) “Sola Scriptura”, as understood by the non-liturgical Protestant Churches has come to mean: “If it isn’t found in the Gospels and the Epistles, it isn’t scriptural”.

e) The more pertinent question is: “Why did they bother keeping the Old Testament?” Historically, the translation process has been the Gospels, then the Epistles, and then the Old Testament, starting with Psalms, the the Torah, then the rest of the Tanakh.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Thaddeus:

None of which matters to Christians, of course, since none of the NT was written in Hebrew, was certainly written after the time of Ezra, and who cares which books non-Christians (Jews) accept.

Protestant Christianity used one set of criteria to determine the NT and a different set to determine the OT.

Since the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church around until 1054 (Orthodox split),

Parthanian Christianity implies otherwise.

since the canon was never in question by the Magesterium, it didn’t need to addressed in such an “official way”,

The original impetus for demarcating the Christian Canon was to be able to condemn heretics. Luther lived roughly 1400 years after the first challenge to what is to be considered canonical. As such, the Magesterium should have addressed the issue in “an official way”, long before the Council of Trent.

who would have ever thought that traditional marriage would have to be enshrined in law?

The Rites of Adelphopoiesis would imply otherwise.

xan

jonathon

 

[Pwrlftr]

But pwftr, you are neglecting something. There local synods conclusion on the canons were approved by the Pope at the time.

Regardless, the councils weren’t ecumenical nor binding on the universal church.

So, let’s assume the canons were approved by the pope? So what? Not every whim of a pope is authoritive such as JPII’s stance on the death penalty.

If you can provide something from Denzinger, Ott, or some other source on this matter I would be interested in reading it. Right now it just sounds like conjecture.

So, pwrflt, it would seem that you are now very well equipped to refute anyone’s accusation that the Church added any books to the Bible at Trent.Good job!!!

I do believe your church has added 7 books to the canon of inspired books but wouldn’t necessarily say your church did it at Trent.

 

[NotWorthy]

Regardless, the councils weren’t ecumenical nor binding on the universal church.

So, let’s assume the canons were approved by the pope? So what? Not every whim of a pope is authoritive such as JPII’s stance on the death penalty.

If you can provide something from Denzinger, Ott, or some other source on this matter I would be interested in reading it. Right now it just sounds like conjecture.

Did I, or anyone else, claim that it was binding. The Church didn’t make it binding until Trent.

This is usually the case with any teaching of the Church. It’s accepted as Tradition until there’s such an uproar, that it needs to be resolved by a Pope’s or a Council’s decision, but these are typically last resorts.

Though you may have shown some questioning of the Canon, the vast majority of the Church’'s flock accepted the decisions made at Hippo and Carthage and the previous Synod.

I do believe your church has added 7 books to the canon of inspired books but wouldn’t necessarily say your church did it at Trent.

To add books to a Canon, there has to be a Canon that did not include the Deuterocanonicals immediately prior to the Canon, that is accepted by the Church.

Can you produce that?

 

[Pwrlftr]

To add books to a Canon, there has to be a Canon that did not include the Deuterocanonicals immediately prior to the Canon, that is accepted by the Church.

Can you produce that?

Go back and re-read my post. I said “I do believe your church has added 7 books to the **canon of inspired books **but wouldn’t necessarily say your church did it at Trent.” What I meant by “canon of inspired books” are those that are inspired by God.

God only inspired X number of books. If you church has X+7 books in the canon, they have added to the canon of inspired books.

 

[NotWorthy]

Go back and re-read my post. I said “I do believe your church has added 7 books to the **canon of inspired books **but wouldn’t necessarily say your church did it at Trent.” What I meant by “canon of inspired books” are those that are inspired by God.

God only inspired X number of books. If you church has X+7 books in the canon, they have added to the canon of inspired books.

So you’re saying that they didn’t add them to any established canon (I mistakenly assumed you said that Hippo added them to the closed Hebrew Canon (which was not closed, yet).

So, what makes you so sure that they weren’t inspired?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Though you may have shown some questioning of the Canon, the vast majority of the Church’'s flock accepted the decisions made at Hippo and Carthage and the previous Synod.

I am not so sure that the “vast majority” of the church accepted the decision made at Hippo and Carthage. I’ll see what I can find on this and post it later.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am not so sure that the “vast majority” of the church accepted the decision made at Hippo and Carthage. I’ll see what I can find on this and post it later.

If there was a vast wave of controversy over the next 1100 years till Trent, the Church would have sat down and settled the issue “once and for all” many centuries earlier. That alone tells you that there wasn’t much controversy over the issue.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I am not so sure that the “vast majority” of the church accepted the decision made at Hippo and Carthage. I’ll see what I can find on this and post it later.

Many folks would seem quite comfortable with the opinion that St Jerome didn’t regards the deuterocannonicals as scripture. Yet, St Jerome without doubt included and even translated some of (even if a little slipshod at times) these books in his translation: the Vulgate, at the insistence of the Church. That suggests that the common opinion of the people in the Western Church favoured the deuterocannonicals. St Jerome ultimately submitted to the judgement of the Church.

While we have records that tell us the early Church disliked Jerome’s translation, we have no records of revolts against the decrees of Hippo and Carthage. This also suggests that there was no generl disagreement about the canon in the Western Church.

I understand that most of the adverse and cautious opinion about the deuterocannonicals stem from St Jerome’s prologues. That again suggests that if not for Jerome, there might be little objection to the deuterocannonicals. That again supports the idea that the Western Church had no problems with the deuterocannonicals.

Interestingly, the Eastern Church started with reservations about these books under St Athanasius, and grew to accept an even wider canon than the Western Church.

Ultimately, the question about the canon of scripture is not about inspiration, but of who has the authority to determine the canon.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If there was a vast wave of controversy over the next 1100 years till Trent, the Church would have sat down and settled the issue “once and for all” many centuries earlier. That alone tells you that there wasn’t much controversy over the issue.

That could be. But if the church wasn’t too concerned about which canon was used there wouldn’t be much controversy about someone rejecting the canon set forth at the earlier councils.

To me it appears appears that the church wasn’t to concerned about it, at least not up until the reformation because we clearly see that the magesterium allowed major works to be used and circulated which called into doubt the canonocity of the deuterocanonicals (and therefore the canon of Hippo and Carthage) such as the vulgate, the Gloss Ordinaire, and Cardinal Ximenes bible (the name of which escapes me).

Since the earlier councils weren’t ecumenical in nature they had no power to bind it upon the conscious of believers to accept the canon they declared. I don’t think you can have a controversy by rejecting something that you aren’t required to believe in the first place.

The controversy during the reformation wasn’t limited to the canon. If all the reformers would have done was to reject the deutero’s I doubt much would have been done since others before them rejected the 7 books as well.

 

[NotWorthy]

That could be. But if the church wasn’t too concerned about which canon was used there wouldn’t be much controversy about someone rejecting the canon set forth at the earlier councils.

After watching the reaction to Jerome’s concerns, I don’t think the Church felt this issue was unimportant. If you look at the Catholic Liturgy, the 1st and 2nd readings contain only Scripture passages. This is a very important issue.

To me it appears appears that the church wasn’t to concerned about it, at least not up until the reformation because we clearly see that the magesterium allowed major works to be used and circulated which called into doubt the canonocity of the deuterocanonicals (and therefore the canon of Hippo and Carthage) such as the vulgate, the Gloss Ordinaire, and Cardinal Ximenes bible (the name of which escapes me).

The Vulgate included the Canons. The Gloss Ordinaire is a commentary. I don’t believe there was ever any Church authority behind it. And Cardinal Ximenes may have doubted it, but he was wrong. This isn’t the first time a Catholic clergyman was wrong in his thinking. Luther comes to mind. Arian (not sure of the spelling) is another one.

Since the earlier councils weren’t ecumenical in nature they had no power to bind it upon the conscious of believers to accept the canon they declared. I don’t think you can have a controversy by rejecting something that you aren’t required to believe in the first place.

Oh really? You want to examine the Arian controversy?

And remember, the Pope felt the need to approve the Hippo and Carthage decisions. And the Pope felt the need to command St. Jerome to include the Deuterocanonicals in the Vulgate as Scriptural. The Church approved Vulgate always included the Deutero’s, to my knowloedge.

The controversy during the reformation wasn’t limited to the canon. If all the reformers would have done was to reject the deutero’s I doubt much would have been done since others before them rejected the 7 books as well.

I wasn’t aware that anyone here made that claim. But whereas others may have disagreed and acquiesced to the Pope’s wishes, the reformers failed to follow the wisdom of their predecessors.

 

[Pwrlftr]

And remember, the Pope felt the need to approve the Hippo and Carthage decisions. And the Pope felt the need to command St. Jerome to include the Deuterocanonicals in the Vulgate as Scriptural. The Church approved Vulgate always included the Deutero’s, to my knowloedge.

Yup, the Pope approved it and sent the vulgate out complete with the deuterocanonicals and Jerome’s preface to each deuterocanonical disparaging their canonocity.

If the pope thought or believed this issue was of importance why would he let the vulgate go out w/ commentary casting doubt upon the canonocity of the deutero’s?

Also, the Glossa Ordinaire was a commentary but it was the major commentary used by the church and it had commentary that cast doubt upon the canonocity of the deutero’s. If this issue was so important, why would the church use this commentary when it clearly contradicted the decrees of Carthage and Hippo?

Ximenes bible was approved by the pope (whoever that was at the time). Again, why would the pope approve of such a work that cast doubt upon the canonocity of the canon established at Carthage and Hippo if it were a matter of importance that one hold to those canons?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Oh really? You want to examine the Arian controversy?

By earlier councils I meant Carthage and Hippo, sorry for being ambiguous.

 

[Ignatius]

Actually, they were in all Protestant bibles and were not actually removed from Protestant bibles until the 19th century, around 1930, I believe.

Make that 1830.

 

[Zooey]

Catholics didn’t need to add 7 books to the Canon in 1546 (or any other year), because the books in question were all ready in the canon.

That said, I do want to comment on the fact that Protestants vary pretty widely in the weight that we place on the Deuterocanonicals. Some people reject them totally as being of no value. (I happen to think that these people can’t have been paying much attention when they read the Bible; if the lists of who belongs to what tribe & who gave how much silver/copper/gold/etc, back in the Pentateuch/Torah, not to mention the [extremely depressing] mental meanderings of an aged King Solomon, in Ecclesiastes, are to be considered as canonical, whilst unceremoniously dumping, say, Sirach as “apocryphal” is OK, then that person needs to read a wee bit more!).
There are people who suggest that these books be read for “inspiration and uplift”, but consider them sort of semi-inspired. (This point of view confuses me no end. A declaration of the colors of the temple draperies, and the number of gold “ouches” [whatever a:shrug: gold ouch may be when its at home…] is inspired, but the wisdom literature of the books in question isn’t??? ).

And then there arehttp://bestsmileys.com/blushing/3.gif otherhttp://bestsmileys.com/blushing/3.gif Protestants, who consider that an inspired book is an inspired book, that the canon is too important to allow its determination to be left to the Jews (who after all, reject the entire New Testament as well), and read the entire lot as Scripture, because demoting books of the Bible is just a tad too serious for any mere mortal to take it on…