Don't read the bible

[joshua_b]

Sorry, i think your just plain wrong.

St. Jerome
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”

And, based on this single piece of writing, I can understand your opinion. Let’s look at some of the other writings of St. Jerome that you probably aren’t so comfortable with. (bear in mind this next quote was written AFTER the one you provided, as the prologue of the book of Judith).

“1Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found1 among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. BUT BECAUSE THIS BOOK IS FOUND BY THE NICENE COUNCIL TO HAVE BEEN COUNTED AMONG THE NUMBER OF SACRED SCRIPTURES, I HAVE ACQUIESCED TO YOUR REQUEST, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly 6curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word.”

The wording of this is very clear and you would have to be either at best, blinded by your own theological prejudices, or at worst, just plain intellectually dishonest to explain away three very important points that are illustrated here.

1. The Canon of Scripture was decided by a Church Council.(The Canon of Scripture did not invent itself, or exist in some sort of mystical unspoken understanding and vague references of one Apostolic writing to another.)
2. The Canon decided on INCLUDED the Deuterocanon, or “Apocraphya” if it pleases you. (If it didn’t, then the prologues by St. Jerome on the Book of Judith, or any of these other books, wouldn’t even exist in the first place).
3. St. Jerome, despite his personal objections, submitted to the authority of the Magisterium and their decision, conceding that the books WERE Canonical by nature of the Church’s declaration as such.

YOU CAN’T GET MUCH MORE CATHOLIC THAN THAT !!!

If you’re interested, the entire set of writings can be found here: bombaxo.com/prologues.html

 

[kaycee]

The resource you gave christiantruth.com is Anti-Catholic resource. It’s reliably is deeply in question, and we Catholic don’t consider it credible. Like others like it, they like to take it out of context.

If you were to say they did not think it was canonical many of those same bishops **did not think the Book of Revelation **is canonical or inspired, yet it was approved by the Councils.
Second, since when did the canonical books was based on opinions? The Church Council made it clear those books are canonical. Some bishops or Cardinals may disagree but the Magisterium of the Church say it is.

You are clearly incorrect. In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

"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."

 

[NotWorthy]

The resource you gave christiantruth.com is Anti-Catholic resource. It’s reliably is deeply in question, and we Catholic don’t consider it credible. Like others like it, they like to take it out of context.

If you were to say they did not think it was canonical many of those same bishops **did not think the Book of Revelation **is canonical or inspired, yet it was approved by the Councils.
Second, since when did the canonical books was based on opinions? The Church Council made it clear those books are canonical. Some bishops or Cardinals may disagree but the Magisterium of the Church say it is.

Manny, it’s one thing to say a site is Anti-Catholic.

But saying so without showing where it is promoting un-truths is another. If a site is promoting something that it knows is false (can you spell C-A-R-M?), then you can call it anti-catholic. But if someone is preaching from a Gospel that is just interpreted differently than the Catholic’s Gospel, doesn’t necessarily mean they are anti-catholic.

Every site that you and I quote from is “Pro-Catholic”. So it has the built in biases that we tend to discredit other sites for having. Just as others need to point out why ScriptureCatholic.com is unreliable before they can discredit it, I think we should point out why other sites are unreliable before we can call it “anti-catholic”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are incorrect.In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

“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 Council of Trent settled the issue because of the Protestant Reformation. During the Reformation, Protestants remove the 7 OT books you. In resource, the Catholic reaffirm the list.

Council of Trent;

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church–her leadership, faithful people–guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.

Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were

special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
apostolic origin;
used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.
Other terms for canonical books should be distinguished: the protocanonical books, deuterocanonical books, and the apocryphal books.

The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)

The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).

 

[NotWorthy]

You are clearly incorrect. In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

"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."

Kaycee, you are half right. The councils of Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the whole church. But they were accepted by the Pope and the Church. Other’s, like Jerome, may have disagreed with the canonicity of these books, but that was not his authority to do. Others may have disagreed, but that’s irrelevant.

This is similar to our teaching on Transubstantiation and the Purgatory and such. They were commonly held beliefs that the Church taught authoritatively. They were not declared dogma’s until there was significant controversy over what the Church should teach on these matters.

So, in the middle ages, we have the good Martin Luther and his reformers raising a big stink of the canonicity of the Bible, even the New Testament, mind you. That’s the only reason Trent officially made the canon a dogma. It would seem if there was not any uproar over this matter, then the Canon would still be a non-dogmatic teaching of the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, it’s one thing to say a site is Anti-Catholic.

But saying so without showing where it is promoting un-truths is another. If a site is promoting something that it knows is false (can you spell C-A-R-M?), then you can call it anti-catholic. But if someone is preaching from a Gospel that is just interpreted differently than the Catholic’s Gospel, doesn’t necessarily mean they are anti-catholic.

Every site that you and I quote from is “Pro-Catholic”. So it has the built in biases that we tend to discredit other sites for having. Just as others need to point out why ScriptureCatholic.com is unreliable before they can discredit it, I think we should point out why other sites are unreliable before we can call it “anti-catholic”.

Any website that gives false information about Catholic doctrine to me is Anti-Catholic.

 

[NotWorthy]

Any website that gives false information about Catholic doctrine to me is Anti-Catholic.

I agree 100%. But you may want to point out what is false, so that the “anti-catholic” banner you drape them with has some validity to others.

 

[kaycee]

And, based on this single piece of writing, I can understand your opinion. Let’s look at some of the other writings of St. Jerome that you probably aren’t so comfortable with. (bear in mind this next quote was written AFTER the one you provided, as the prologue of the book of Judith).

BUT BECAUSE THIS BOOK IS FOUND BY THE NICENE COUNCIL TO HAVE BEEN COUNTED AMONG THE NUMBER OF SACRED SCRIPTURES, I HAVE ACQUIESCED TO YOUR REQUEST, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly 6curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word."

The wording of this is very clear and you would have to be either at best, blinded by your own theological prejudices, or at worst, just plain intellectually dishonest to explain away three very important points that are illustrated here.

1. The Canon of Scripture was decided by a Church Council.(The Canon of Scripture did not invent itself, or exist in some sort of mystical unspoken understanding and vague references of one Apostolic writing to another.)

Yes, by Trent. In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

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.

1. The Canon decided on INCLUDED the Deuterocanon, or “Apocraphya” if it pleases you. (If it didn’t, then the prologues by St. Jerome on the Book of Judith, or any of these other books, wouldn’t even exist in the first place).

Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

“I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.”

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

1. St. Jerome, despite his personal objections, submitted to the authority of the Magisterium and their decision, conceding that the books WERE Canonical by nature of the Church’s declaration as such.

That is clearly NOT what happend as noted by the New Catholic Encyclopeida. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the reason the canon was not definitively settled for the Church until the Council of Trent is that the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.

EVEN Cardinal Cajetan at the time of the Reformation!says there not God Breathed.

The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following background on his importance and influence:

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope.** He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical** in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree 100%. But you may want to point out what is false, so that the “anti-catholic” banner you drape them with has some validity to others.

You could view those cites and read their information about Catholicism. Time and time again, you will see they’ll take it out of context.

For example from
Carm.org:

Are Roman Catholics Christians? They are if they have trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins. However, if they believe that the are saved by God’s grace and their works, then they are not saved – even if they believe their works are done by God’s grace – since they then deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

Being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It means being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn’t forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn’t forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn’t forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn’t forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though **Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs **in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.

So, what is the CARM position on Roman Catholics?
CARM’s position is simple. If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is **not a Christian **since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture. Therefore, as a whole, Roman Catholics need to be evangelized. They need to hear the true Gospel. They need to hear that they are not made right before God by being in a church, or by being baptized, but by receiving Christ (John 1:12), believing that Jesus has risen from the dead (Rom. 10:9), and that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by our deeds (Rom. 4:5).

Do you see the errors in that post I cited?

 

[Mannyfit75]

kaycee:

Yes, by Trent. In fact, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

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.

kaycee:

[/q]Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

“I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.”

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

That is clearly NOT what happend as noted by the New Catholic Encyclopeida. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the reason the canon was not definitively settled for the Church until the Council of Trent is that the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.

EVEN Cardinal Cajetan at the time of the Reformation!

says there not God Breathed.

The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following background on his importance and influence:

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope.** He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical** in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament.

Why are you ignoring the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and rely mostly opinions of bishops just because they do not view it inspired.

During the formation of the Canon of Scripture MANY bishops did not think the Book of Revelation is inspired.

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you see the errors in that post I cited?

Yes, Manny. And, again, I agree with you. Now, to those that aren’t aware of CARM’s outrageous anti-catholic writings, they may be more liable to believe you when you show just how incorrect those guys are.

But just saying, “that’s an anti-catholic site”, is not going to wash with anyone until you show them why it’s anti-catholic.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, Manny. And, again, I agree with you. Now, to those that aren’t aware of CARM’s outrageous anti-catholic writings, they may be more liable to believe you when you show just how incorrect those guys are.

But just saying, “that’s an anti-catholic site”, is not going to wash with anyone until you show them why it’s anti-catholic.

exactly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

kaycee,

Which Catholic Encyclopedia are you using? The

newadvent.org?

 

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by Mannyfit75
Any website that gives false information about Catholic doctrine to me is Anti-Catholic.

I agree 100%. But you may want to point out what is false, so that the “anti-catholic” banner you drape them with has some validity to others.

I would find your expertise in this matter helpful as well.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the Canon in the fourth and fifth centuries:

But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament**. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.**These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage . For the Spanish Church valuable testimony is found in the work of the heretic Priscillian, “Liber de Fide et Apocryphis”; it supposes a sharp line existing between canonical and uncanonical works, and that the Canon takes in all the deuteros.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the Canon in the fourth and fifth centuries:

Excellent.

 

[joshua_b]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the reason the canon was not definitively settled for the Church until the Council of Trent is that the issue remained unclear in the centuries subsequent to Jerome; meaning that many leading theologians, cardinals and bishops did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.

EVEN Cardinal Cajetan at the time of the Reformation!says there not God Breathed.

The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following background on his importance and influence:

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope.** He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical** in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament.

First of all, everything you provided as “evidence” is nothing more than personal opinion of a few (very few in my opinion, but that’s subjective) individuals. None of this circumvents the fact that ANY OFFICIAL Church Document defining the Canon of Scripture, for as long as any such document has existed, has always consistently affirmed the exact same Canon that Catholics (not just Roman Catholics, but ALL Catholics) hold to today. The official declarations of the Church have remained consistent since the issue was first addressed in the Council of Hippo. The opinion of any individual does not override Magisterial teaching. Give reference to any official Church document that is in contradiction to the many (repeated) affirmations of the Canon of Scripture, and then I will concede that the Canon was “in dispute”.

Back to Jerome, he AFFIRMED that Judith was considered Canonical by the Church in his own words. Maybe you should read this again…
“1Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found1 among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. BUT BECAUSE THIS BOOK IS FOUND BY THE NICENE COUNCIL TO HAVE BEEN COUNTED AMONG THE NUMBER OF SACRED SCRIPTURES…”

This pretty much lends itself back to the argument that has been presented. Jerome did not feel the books in question were Canonical, but that was his opinion, and the Church declared otherwise, which is why he “ACQUIESCED TO [their] REQUEST…” (Jerome’s words not mine).

As far as the contradiction of Carthage and Trent, I am in the process of looking up source documents and historical perspectives for this right now. If you have links to the documents produced at Carthage and at Trent, it would be appreciated.

 

[kaycee]

Why are you ignoring the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and rely mostly opinions of bishops just because they do not view it inspired.

During the formation of the Canon of Scripture MANY bishops did not think the Book of Revelation is inspired.

Why are you ignoring facts stated by Catholic historians?

Why are you ignoring that the list of books by Carthage and the list of books by Trent is different?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why are you ignoring facts stated by Catholic historians?

Why are you ignoring that the list of books by Carthage and the list of books by Trent is different?

They are different that I know that much.

The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture. The bishops were preserved from falling into error, as our Lord promised, on this important matter concerning the Holy Catholic Church. (Matt. 16:18-19; 20:20; 28:18-20) (Luke. 22:31-32; 10:16) (1 Tim. 3:15) (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6) They included Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Roman Catholics call these books deuterocanonical. Protestants call them Apocrypha. There are some additional passages in Daniel and Esther not found in Protestant Bibles.

Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). These are significant and noteworthy because it proves that some of these books were in circulation in Palestine and were accepted by Jewish groups there. It was once thought that the deuterocanonical books in the Alexandrian canon had been composed in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic. The Bible also came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century. ( No small feat! ) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D., ( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ), gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is very relevant and significant because earlier Protestant reformers of the 16th century, were very suspicious of, and rejected books, only available to them in the Greek Language. In part therefore, the Protestant canon of 66 books of Sacred Scripture is deficient - short seven (7) books. [4] Apparently, not everyone is (was) aware of and appreciates the significance of the findings and analysis of the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran). [5]