Martin Luther...

[TertiumQuid]

Marco Polo,

The church was divided as to the inclusion or exclusion of the apocrypha. There were in fact, as far as I can ascertain, two major traditions. We could argue at length which people accepted which canon. You probably do know that some of those name on my side are hardly labeled correctly as “dissenters”, and further the term “dissenter” assumes your position is the correct one. I could just as easily say those who accept the apocrypha are the dissenters. In fact, you’ve mentioned two of those on my side already- Jerome and Athanasius. Two men who hold significant weight in the history of the church.

The reason why Trent stepped in is precisely because there was confusion as to the canonicity of the Apocrypha, and not just because of the early Reformers. That’s why I can point to such Roman Catholic contemporaries of Luther like Cajetan, Erasmus, and Seripando.

You’ve granted that the so-called majority isn’t necessarily correct. Keep in mind, the alleged “minority” isn’t as minor as you portray them- as if a few stray voices here and there rejected the Apocrypha. It was not, the “minimal opposition” as you claim. You may find this link of interest as well as a description of that which informs my opinion.

The bottom line though of course is exactly as stated by GiannaMarie: “here we are back to where Papal Authority is being challenged.” Indeed, the bottom line is I do not accept the infallibility of the Roman magisterium or Trent. They didn’t even settle the canon- that’s the irony. They passed over the status of Esdras, not deciding one way or the other.

The questions though about Luther appear to be settled, so I don’t think there’s really anything more to say, at least on my end. I don’t plan on going 25 pages with you.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[MarcoPolo]

The church was divided as to the inclusion or exclusion of the apocrypha. There were in fact, as far as I can ascertain, two major traditions. We could argue at length which people accepted which canon. You probably do know that some of those name on my side are hardly labeled correctly as “dissenters”, and further the term “dissenter” assumes your position is the correct one. I could just as easily say those who accept the apocrypha are the dissenters. In fact, you’ve mentioned two of those on my side already- Jerome and Athanasius. Two men who hold significant weight in the history of the church.

The reason why Trent stepped in is precisely because there was confusion as to the canonicity of the Apocrypha, and not just because of the early Reformers. That’s why I can point to such Roman Catholic contemporaries of Luther like Cajetan, Erasmus, and Seripando.

You’ve granted that the so-called majority isn’t necessarily correct. Keep in mind, the alleged “minority” isn’t as minor as you portray them- as if a few stray voices here and there rejected the Apocrypha. It was not, the “minimal opposition” as you claim. You may find this link of interest as well as a description of that which informs my opinion.

Neither Jerome (see Michuta, p. 148-152, and chapter 4), nor Athanasius, are clear opponents of the Deuterocanon. Both of them, especially Athanasius, cited books of the Deuterocanon as Scripture, a detail that supports the pro-Deuterocanon position. You also are apparently including folks who took a passive position, as evidenced in the way you previously presented St. Thomas (if you wish to consider him to have had no position on, say, Maccabbees, despite his extensive citing of the books in his Summa, not to mention his embrace of the other Deuterocanonical books). Seripando was also nuanced, desiring different levels of canonicity according to your own source which I quote: “Seripando* favored a distinction in the degrees of authority* of the books of the Florentine canon.” (emphasis mine) So it would stand to reason that you think pro- and anti-Deuterocanon were both “major” positions since you include numerous figures who did not actually reject the Deuterocanonical books. It is erroneous thinking to collect as allies on this issue any ECF or theologian who was passive or nuanced on the Deuterocanon. However, those who are pro-Deuterocanon can be seen to make a positive statement in favor of those books.

You will note in the 4th century, when local councils and bishops were affirming the Deuterocanon, we heard little to no outrage conciliarly or otherwise. In fact, we heard little “objection” for some 1100 years. When explicit dismissal of the Deuterocanon gained momentum at the Reformation, the movement was immediately rejected at Trent. This parallels the Church’s reaction to the error of Arius. When an erroneous teaching gains momentum in the Church, the Church typically responds sooner than 1100 years. The response to Arius was immediate. To the anti-Deuterocanon group, also immediate. If there was a “major tradition,” as you say, that Trent canonized what “they should not have,” then where was the revolt for the centuries prior while this “major tradition” of error was allowed to flourish? If, as your source Beckwith says, the OT canon was seen as defined in 164 BC, where was the opposition as soon as someone dared to stray from that canon?

Answer–if a teaching is not considered erroneous, then it makes sense that there was no opposition. ECFs or theologians passive on the Deuterocanon are not going to gain opposition, because the books they positively identified as Scripture were indeed Scripture. Jerome briefly met with his battles during his lifetime, but he ultimately submitted to the Church’s authority.

Your mention of Esdras is covered here and here.

I’m also glad you think Michuta’s book is the best on the subject so far. I would agree, no doubt for different reasons than you, but all the same.

As to Luther, you assert he did not “remove” books, but that was the sum effect of his belittling efforts against the books, even if he took only the first step. He also should get due credit for prompting Trent to define the canon the Church had accepted.

 

[GiannaMarie_JMJ]

I still find it difficult to understand why people would want to follow mere men that started their own churches and made their own rules. People can argue back and forth about who was right about this and that but it still comes down to the fact that The Catholic Church was there from the beginning and still is. Pride and selfishness seem to be the reason. To rebel against the Church Jesus Chirst established, in my eyes, is saying that Jesus is a liar since " The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

God Bless,

GiananMarie_JMJ

 

[JonNC]

I still find it difficult to understand why people would want to follow mere men that started their own churches and made their own rules. People can argue back and forth about who was right about this and that but it still comes down to the fact that The Catholic Church was there from the beginning and still is. Pride and selfishness seem to be the reason. To rebel against the Church Jesus Chirst established, in my eyes, is saying that Jesus is a liar since " The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

God Bless,

GiananMarie_JMJ

A different issue, but I appreciate your thoughts.

Jon