After discovering the Catholic Bible had more books, I began to investigate. I had always believed the false Catholic claim, until a few days ago, that Luther had removed these books from the Catholic Bible.
The canon of scripture, Ginger2, as proclaimed by all the previous councils up to Trent as well, includes only books considered to be inspired.
Luther “removed” these books by demoting them from the previously held belief by the Church that they are inspired. He erroneously distinguished them from the other books in the canon. Luther demoted them from canonical (inspired) status against the previously held teaching of the Church.
I believed, from Catholic sources, Jerome placed the in the collection of books we call the Bible, but sense Jerome had set them apart stating they were not inspired, I mistakenly believed ML removed them.
Code:
My summation today is this:
*These books have always been read in the church (I have never disagreed on that point)
*These books were never universally considered inspired until Trent (I always believed that since my “extra books” discovery)
No, Ginger2. They would not have been included in the canon had they not been considered inspired. You should understand this, since you yourself have made a very good argument that the NT books were inspired as soon as they were written, not at the time they were proclaimed canonical.
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say the RC added them, but rather they declared them inspired for the -first time in trhe 16th century.
They were not “added”, this is true, but nothing was included in the canon that was not considered inspired. They were part of the canon because they were considered as such. The declaration was to refute Luther and others’ heresies in demoting the books to non-canonical status.
Code:
*Martin Luther **did not removed any books from the church**
Since Luther was no longer in the Church at the time, having been excommunicated, then of course he had no authority to remove anything. Furthermore, had he still been in good standing with the Church, he still would not have had the authority to alter the canon as received from the infallible councils.
He did demote the books, though, to non-canonical status, and declared that they were apocryphal (non-inspired) writings.
Code:
Rather he affirmed the pope's decision that the deuteros were not inspired but had a lesser value within the Christian community.
No, the pope never made such a decision. Even if one had, it would not over ride the infallible decisions of the previous councils.
Code:
Which is demonstrating by the pope's approval of Jerome stating so in the Vulgate.
The pope allowed Jerome to publish his opinions, just as they are published today in biblical footnotes. That does not change the canon that was declared by the infallible councils.
Then why did the pope allow a disclaimer to be written in the Vulgate?
Same reason the Church allows footnotes and commentaries today.
Code:
The Catholic Church, since the 16th century, has considered these books inspired, but not before. Not until after ML.
You are in error still, Ginger2, though it is good you have made some progress from the misinformation you posted at first.
The Catholic church does not allow anything to be read in Mass except inspired canonical writings. The only reason the Church has used these since the beginning is that they were considered inspired. The present construction of the Divine Liturgy was adapted from the synagog service where the Septuagint was used. Later, the NT scriptures were added to the readings.
To try and end on some sort of a good note.
I can acknowledge that the extended versions were probably considered inspired by the pope, as they were not separated.
However, whether inspired or not, Bel and the Dragon is not part of Daniel.
It is considered part of a set of books called “Daniel”. There are other subsets of books in the Septuagint as well. however, since the authenticity of this book is not relevant to the OP, I will not make a dispute about this.
