Protestants and the Bible?

[Duane1966]

It is not false. Trent set the canon after discussions which included arguments against the DC books. There was also the discussion of anathemas.

Jon

It is false.

1.) Trent reaffirmed the canon that was set at Florence. Not ONE bishop voted against reaffirming the deuterocanonicals, which would be strange if their were major arguments against their inclusion. That would mean some bishops voted for their inclusion, when they doubted their canonicity.

2.) We do know that there was argumentation and discussion on three major issues dealing with the canon, but subsequent to that unanimous vote, all of which were voted on, and none of which had anything to do with the deuterocanonicals specifically. This seems to be where the confusion has popped up.

A.) The first issue, and one there was much debate on, was whether to attach an anathema to the listing of the books in the Latin Vulgate. This is the one where most people get confused, and say there was heated discussion on the deuterocanon. The vote that took place on this anathema, is where you will find several sites that confuse this vote with the vote on the deuterocanon.

B.) Another vote was whether to elevate any other book to scriptural status, like third Maccabees. This vote also has confused many people, for in not understanding the vote, they feel that Trent left the canon open. There is a simple explanation for this vote, but it does not pertain to this discussion.

C.) Another vote, and again one where there was discussion, was whether to close the canon, which Trent did.

 

[JonNC]

It is false.

1.) Trent reaffirmed the canon that was set at Florence. Not ONE bishop voted against reaffirming the deuterocanonicals, which would be strange if their were major arguments against their inclusion. That would mean some bishops voted for their inclusion, when they doubted their canonicity.

2.) We do know that there was argumentation and discussion on three major issues dealing with the canon, but subsequent to that unanimous vote, all of which were voted on, and none of which had anything to do with the deuterocanonicals specifically. This seems to be where the confusion has popped up.

A.) The first issue, and one there was much debate on, was whether to attach an anathema to the listing of the books in the Latin Vulgate. This is the one where most people get confused, and say there was heated discussion on the deuterocanon. The vote that took place on this anathema, is where you will find several sites that confuse this vote with the vote on the deuterocanon.

B.) Another vote was whether to elevate any other book to scriptural status, like third Maccabees. This vote also has confused many people, for in not understanding the vote, they feel that Trent left the canon open. There is a simple explanation for this vote, but it does not pertain to this discussion.

C.) Another vote, and again one where there was discussion, was whether to close the canon, which Trent did.

I didn’t say anyone voted against the DCs. What I said was there was debate about them. If the issue was closed at Florence, and the liberty to dispute over, then Cajetan would have faced consequences for his clearly written dispute of them. Erasmus would have faced greater criticism than he did.
Regarding B and C, if Florence had closed the canon, why debate these at all? ISTM they were discussed precisely because Florence did not close the canon, and dispute about the canon was still permitted.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

I didn’t say anyone voted against the DCs. What I said was there was debate about them.

Jon, the debate at Trent was not whether the DC’s were Scripture or not, for Trent felt Florence had already settled that question. The debate was whether to vote to reaffirm them, to send a clear message, since they had been called into question by the Reformers. If they had not voted to reaffirm them, it would not matter, as it was already settled at Florence. It would be like voting to reaffirm the Nicene creed. Nice, but not needed.

If the issue was closed at Florence, and the liberty to dispute over, then Cajetan would have faced consequences for his clearly written dispute of them. Erasmus would have faced greater criticism than he did.

Not true. There have been many Catholic bishops and theologians who have dissented from the teachings of the Church. Not all have been disciplined. The chaos the Church was under at the time, it is not surprising to me that Cajetan was not criticized.

Regarding B and C, if Florence had closed the canon, why debate these at all? ISTM they were discussed precisely because Florence did not close the canon, and dispute about the canon was still permitted.

Jon, I never said Florence closed the canon. There is a big difference between declaring books Scriptural, which Florence clearly did,and closing the canon, which Florence clearly did not. After Florence, third Maccabees could be elevated to Scripture. After Trent it could not.

 

[steve_b]

I didn’t say anyone voted against the DCs. What I said was there was debate about them. If the issue was closed at Florence, and the liberty to dispute over, then*** Cajetan ***would have faced consequences for his clearly written dispute of them. Erasmus would have faced greater criticism than he did.
Regarding B and C, if Florence had closed the canon, why debate these at all? ISTM they were discussed precisely because Florence did not close the canon, and dispute about the canon was still permitted.

Jon

Did Erasmus or Cajetan change the canon? Nope!

Jon,

Here is a quote from Florence.

(all emphasis mine) in particular the DC’s

"Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.*

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, *Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."

From Session 11 (1442)

Note: Ecclesiasticus = Sirach, I inserted (Sirach) next to Ecclesiasticus for clarification

So…one has to ask, just being transparent, what part of the language in that session, sounds like this book list is a mere suggestion?. Especially considering, Florence list of books is the exact same list of books from the councils of Rome, Carthage, & Hippo. IOW, Florence confirmed the same canon used for the last 1100+ years in the Catholic Church.

One could surmise I suppose just in case there was any confusion about this 1100+ year old list of books, in the minds of “some”, at the time of Florence, that Florence was addressing that, and clarifying any confusion by “some” at the time of Florence, and to clarify any confusion going into the future. Did Trent change ANYTHING in this list? Nope!

And speaking of the future, Luther had to admit 95 years after Florence, I’m sure coming to grips with all the history going back to Jesus, that he had to admit

“We concede–as we must--that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that **the papacy has God’s word **and the office of the apostles, and that **we have received Holy Scriptures, **Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”