You might want to check your facts. The Canon decreed in 397 at the Council of Carthage is identical, book-for-book, with the Canon decreed in 1546 at the Council of Trent. We didn’t wait until Trent to add the so-called “Apocrypha”. They were there all along. Could you provide a source that says otherwise?Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Kelly, J. N. D… Early Christian Doctrines. Harper Collins. pp. 53–54It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church… always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.
You need to read history,a good book on biblical scholarship particularly one on the Texts and get your facts straight.Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Because there wasn’t a direct challenge to the authenticity or inspiration of Scripture up until that time. The Apocrapha *was already *in the Canon of Scripture. What the Church did at the Council of Trent was to defend what it already had accepted as the biblical canon of books, and that included the books that the protestant movement had rejected.Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
Ok, point well taken. What about all of the different versions of the original Canon though, why more than one?You might want to check your facts. The Canon decreed in 397 at the Council of Carthage is identical, book-for-book, with the Canon decreed in 1546 at the Council of Trent. We didn’t wait until Trent to add the so-called “Apocrypha”. They were there all along. Could you provide a source that says otherwise?
The Church did get it right the first time.
In fact, J.N.D. Kelly, an Anglican, stated:
Kelly, J. N. D… Early Christian Doctrines. Harper Collins. pp. 53–54
I wouldn’t be so quick to pin it all on the Protestants though. The Hebraic Jews never accepted the apocrypha as inspired still to this day and when St. Jerome was formulating the Latin Vulgate, he was reluctant to include those books in the same nature as the others.What the heck are you talking about? What noneducated Bible historian are you listening to? It has never changed. The prostants changed it.
T.hey were sanctioned by the Early Church, not just the Catholic church but also the Eastern Orthodox, so I don’t understand your point.Disregard the Apocryphal books—With your church, claiming to have so-called God-given authority, why then, do they still rely on the books of Matthew - Revelations sanctioned by the Catholic Church?
History shows us that the apocrypha has always been in question as being as authoritative as the other books of Scripture. Yes, we as Anglicans do read from them as they are part of the lectionary but we do not establish doctrine from them. These books were even under scrutiny from St. Jerome as he compiled the Latin Vulgate as was obvious from his hesitation to recommend them to the Church as fully inspired as the others. Hebraic Jews to this day do not recognize them as inspired.Anglican right? therefore not orthodox, so what is also you’re point? Here’s fact-- Apocryphal books existed before Trent-- it remained unquestioned until the reformation, where the Church had to reaffirm the books as canonical. Not added.
It is always worth pointing out that the 73 books are the minimum books to be considered canonical. Rome knows that other apostolic Churches have even more.Ok, point well taken. What about all of the different versions of the original Canon though, why more than one?
Also too, if the Catholic church by her own inherant God given authority gave the world the Bible, then why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Catholic church wait until the Council of Trent in 1546 AD…quote]
I’m afraid you’ve (or whoever (mis)informed you) got the facts wrong. The same identical canon that was first declared by Pope Damasus I in 382 (see excerpt of declaration below) was reaffirmed many times down through the millennia. below is an excerpt from the It was the same canon declared in 382, at Hippo, Carthage and in many more councils down through the aeons. 1546 is only the most recent reaffirmation.
The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…
.
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
******It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ******
******The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. ******
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…
AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.” (canon 36 A.D. 393).
The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…
AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical " (canon 47 A.D. 397).
And your point? The Church did accept them. That’s all that matters.I wouldn’t be so quick to pin it all on the Protestants though. The Hebraic Jews never accepted the apocrypha as inspired still to this day and when St. Jerome was formulating the Latin Vulgate, he was reluctant to include those books in the same nature as the others.
Hebraic Jews stopped including them in their Bible after the second century A.D. because they were the only books not written in Hebrew. And this is why St. Jerome questioned them, but although St. Jerome questioned them, he did translate them knowing they would not be taken out of the Bible. And the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit decides what is canon in the Bible. And the Catholic Church confirmed that they are canon. Does that help answer your question?History shows us that the apocrypha has always been in question as being as authoritative as the other books of Scripture. Yes, we as Anglicans do read from them as they are part of the lectionary but we do not establish doctrine from them. These books were even under scrutiny from St. Jerome as he compiled the Latin Vulgate as was obvious from his hesitation to recommend them to the Church as fully inspired as the others. Hebraic Jews to this day do not recognize them as inspired.
I don’t believe that to be exactly accurate. The apocrypha was translated into Latin along with the other books prior to St. Jerome’s decision to keep it separate. He wasn’t the first to translate it from Greek so this didn’t have any bearing upon his decision to present as such to the Church.Hebraic Jews stopped including them in their Bible after the second century A.D. because they were the only books not written in Hebrew. And this is why St. Jerome questioned them, but although St. Jerome questioned them, he did translate them knowing they would not be taken out of the Bible. And the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit decides what is canon in the Bible. And the Catholic Church confirmed that they are canon. Does that help answer your question?