Protestant claim: Council of Trent inconsistent with Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prodigal1984

Guest
In regard to the deuterocanonical books, we normally say that the Council of Trent affirmed all of the books in the Vulgate following the Protestant Reformation as their leaders were questioning their authority as scripture.
Now, I agree with all of the arguments in regards to the deuterocanonical books. However something which Norman Geisler brought up in one of his books, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals:Agreements and Differences is that the Council of Trent was not consistent.
Many of us will say the Protestants removed the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament at the time, but the truth is the Catholic Church did as well. If you ever read a KJV w the Apocrypha you will notice there are 3 books which are not in our Bibles along with the deuterocanonical books which are. These are 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
The Council of Trent did not affirm these books which had also been present in the Vulgate for centuries and Pope Clement Vlll placed them in an appendix to the Vulgate following the Council in 1592 just for this reason. They were present in the Douay Rheims Bible appendix until 1752. Note in these versions they are called 3 and 4 Esdras.
If this is why these three texts are included in the standard Protestant apocrypha, because they were in the Vulgate and were probably regarded the same by Protestants as the deuterocanonical books, why in that case did the Church deny them canonicity but gave it to the rest of the books? I never have really seen an apologist explain that on this site, and most people seem to say the Protestants removed the deuterocanonical books and called them the apocrypha, but the truth is in regards to these three texts the Catholic Church did the same thing.
Was then the Council of Trent inconsistent?
 
Last edited:
What early councils and synods affirmed the books you’re concerned with as divinely inspired?
 
And whose authority is it to determine what is divinely inspired and/or profitable reading for the faithful? For all the arguments, is authority ever discussed?
 
In the same Councils that never named Baruch as scripture. These books were in the Vulgate for centuries and were regarded as scripture.
Columbus even cited 2 Esdras appealing to Spain to fund his voyage.
 
Well Pope Clement Vlll did say they should be read yet they no longer appear in our Bibles. Protestants are probably more familiar with them than we are.
 
Prodigal1984 said:
In the same Councils that never named Baruch as scripture. These books were in the Vulgate for centuries and were regarded as scripture.
Columbus even cited 2 Esdras appealing to Spain to fund his voyage.
Click to expand...
Inclusion in the Bible isn’t a pronouncement of it being divinely inspired.

And what are the “same councils that never declared Baruch as scripture” specifically?
 
Plus Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the earliest Councils. Seeing as most early Church fathers cited 1 Esdras and in the Septuagint it is the first Esdras book, it makes sense it was spoken of as one of the two books of Esdras. Ezra and Nehemiah weren’t even separated into two books until the 9th century. The Prayer of Manasseh appears as chapter 37 of 2 Chronicles in Orthodox Bibles, so just like additions to Daniel and Esther, it is very possible they wouldn’t specifically name it.
 
Columbus quoted 2 Esdras 6:42 in his appeal to fund his voyage.
On the third day thou didst command the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts thou didst dry up and keep so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before thee.
2 Esdras 6:42 RSV-CI

If Catholics didn’t regard it as scripture one would wonder why he would appeal to it to make his case. My point is, before Trent it was considered scripture by Catholics. Thus it is true that Trent did not just affirm all of the books in the Vulgate.
 
Last edited:
Also this verse sounds a lot like the Eternal Rest prayer known by most Christians.
Therefore I say to you, O nations that hear and understand, “Await your shepherd; he will give you eternal rest, because he who will come at the end of the age is close at hand. Be ready for the rewards of the kingdom, because the perpetual light will shine upon you for evermore.
2 Esdras 2:34‭-‬35
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
Hyppo, Carthage.
Click to expand...
1 Edras appears to have been included at Hippo and Carthage, along with Ezra-Nehemiah. However, 2 Edras (the apocalyptic one) was not. The Prayer of Manasseh was also never singled out at these councils, and it’s inclusion seemed more along the lines of profitable reading.

As for 1 Edras, Jerome generally considered this somewhat of a duplicate derived from Ezra-Nehemiah, and the Church has not deemed to include it separately as a sort of duplicate.
 
And Columbus is a great saint of the Church? It was a popular work considered profitable reading. I don’t see it included in a list of divinely inspired books. Inclusion in the Bible was not taken that way, and even the Orthodox see terms like scripture, canon, and divinely inspired as not all meaning the same thing.
 
Yes but here is the thing.
These early Councils were local. Technically they weren’t defined infallibly. For example, it was not a sin to not regard the deuterocanonical books as scripture before the Council of Trent. This is also why Orthodox Bibles tend to accept even more books than us, because their local Councils, say Trullo which is not regarded by the Catholic Church named three books of Maccabees. Thus until Trent you could be a Catholic and only regard these books are profitable reading. Trent was where the Canon was definitively defined.
My only problem here is that Apologists say the Church affirmed all of the books in the Vulgate but this is false. We say Protestants removed 14 books from their Bible but noone stops and realizes that 3 of them are also not in our Bibles anymore.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
Yes but here is the thing.
These early Councils were local. Technically they weren’t defined infallibly. For example, it was not a sin to not regard the deuterocanonical books as scripture before the Council of Trent. This is also why Orthodox Bibles tend to accept even more books than us, because their local Councils, say Trullo which is not regarded by the Catholic Church named three books of Maccabees. Thus until Trent you could be a Catholic and only regard these books are profitable reading. Trent was where the Canon was definitively defined.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t put it quite so loosely. But the determination was based on prior use and reaction to a widespread counter movement and Church wide controversy, which is generally what prompts such sweeping doctrinal affirmations such as Trinitarianism, diaphysitism, and so on.

But then, do you object to the Church as the one authority for resolving such things or the development of doctrine?
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
standard Protestant apocrypha
Click to expand...
There is no “standard” Protestant apocrypha as such: it’s a very blanket term. For e.g. the apocrypha in the NRSV (non-Catholic edition) includes deuterocanonical books recognised only by Catholics, others only recognised by Eastern Orthodox, some only by the Oriental Orthodox and a few books recognised by none (the pseudepigrapha).

In formatting the NRSV for Catholics, several apocryphal books were removed: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.
Prodigal1984 said:
why in that case did the Church deny them canonicity but gave it to the rest of the books
Click to expand...
Partially this is because inclusion into manuscripts was not necessarily an indication that the book was considered canonical. It might have been of historical interest or out of tradition. For e.g. the Old Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans which was sporadically re-inserted every now and again into Vulgate manuscripts.

We need to avoid an overly simplified, black-and-white view of the canonicity of the Scriptures. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that an attempt was made to draw a clear demarcation between canonical and non-canonical books of Scripture. Prior to that, there was a generally accepted core range of books (the Pentateuch, etc.) with a grey, muddy area.

Most theologians understand the Tridentine canon to be definitive in the sense that the books listed are definitively held to be canonical, but that the canon is not definitively closed to whatever other particular books might be of local liturgical or traditional usage to Orthodox Churches.
 
Not at all.
I’m just pointing out that it is not the case that the Catholic Church accepted all of the books in the Vulgate which is the common view by most.
 
Bithynian said:
In formatting the NRSV for Catholics, several apocryphal books were removed: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.
Click to expand...
This is true. The NRSV has an expanded apocrypha. Note though that 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh are marked in that Bible as being in an appendix to the Vulgate.
Also, I am referring to the apocrypha of the 1611 KJV. Thus early Protestants saw no distinction between say 2 Maccabees and 2 Esdras, which is proven by the part of the canon of scripture of the 39 Articles of Religion in the Anglican Church. The NRSV did not expand the apocrypha to include those books unique to Orthodoxy( 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151) until 1977.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
Not at all.
I’m just pointing out that it is not the case that the Catholic Church accepted all of the books in the Vulgate which is the common view by most.
Click to expand...
While someone might argue over 1 Esdras, which Jerome didn’t include in his copy, inclusion didn’t equate to divinely inspired. More recently, Clement VIII made that clear when he included some works so they wouldn’t be lost to antiquity.

Books like 2 Mc and the other deuterocanonical books were included at Hippo and Carthage. 1 Esdras was, too, but not the Prayer of Manasseh or 2 Esdras (apocalyptic, the numbering of the Esdras books seems to vary by context).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top