.
Excuse me, when I said you ignored my post it is because you did not respond to me when I wrote to you (in an earlier post some 2 or 3 pages back). As for stating that I cut and pasted a miscitation presented by Peter Wiener, would you mind pointing out what that miscitation would be. Also, I do not recall your post addressing me on this issue.
Actually it appears you’re not reading my posts, which is ok,
I do not read all the posts but I most definitely read the ones addressed to me, however, if by chance I missed one why did you not post me again?**
I realize the facts I’ve presented don’t fit in your template, and can’t account for a significant amount of historical information.**
I realize how limited your view of history is since the reformation only dates back to the 1500’s, beyond that I guess can get you confused, no worries, that’s what we’re here to teach you.
There were theologians and others all the way up to Trent that did not believe the Deutero- canonicals were canon The “Tradition” you speak of wasn’t determined unti the Council of trent.
Again, what do I care if a few or some theologians have questioned or doubted the divinely inspired Deuterocanonicals, you will never find at any point in the CC’s history a Magisterium (which has the authority to define Truth) concluding that the deuteros were uninspired, as such you waste your time quoting individual people to present your case. As for spreading the myth that we only determined the canon at trent:
" At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out."
Up until that time, the Roman Catholic Church gives her theologians the freedom to hold differing and speculative views.
Yes, but only for the sake of arguing, that is, such things could be debated but nothing more.
That’s why in the 6th Century, Gregory the Great could say,
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)
“In fact, since 382 only one council or pope had appeared to deny the canonicity of an Old Testament deuterocanonical book. Gregory the Great, writing in his Morals on the book of Job around 600, said of 1 Maccabees, “We are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus, Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down the elephant but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc 6:46). This was not a formal universal teaching to the faithful; rather, it was private theological commentary on the book of Job. Such a teaching is not a statement invoking papal authority, nor is it subject to or preserved by the charism of papal infallibility.”
Again, all you are doing is quoting individuals, and considering the 2000 years of Catholic theologians/popes/priests/saints/cardinals/bishops under CC authority, what you offer is a drop in the bucket (as for Cardinal Cajetan he is stating they are canonical.
This isn’t the point. The larger canon was often put forth, even by those who doubted divine Duetero-canonical authority. The issue was not whether or not they appear in a Bible, but what their divine status was. That’s why Luther’s Bible has them, and even why some Protestant confessions of faith say they are useful to read but not inspired.
Yes it is the point, the CC (the magisterium who made such decisions) would not put uninspired scripture into the Bible if it was not recognized as inspired. Every authorized Catholic Bible before the reformation contained the deuteros.
As to your quotes, they don’t address my points at all. The first quote backfires on you because it says “generally” and then it affirms my point that not until Trent did the Roman Church make an infallible pronouncement on the canon. It has nothing of substance to the points I’ve been making.
The first quote issued does not use the word “generally” has in “sometimes the CC accepted the deuteros as inspired and sometimes it didn’t,” the author is using it in a manner that conveys that there were a few exceptions to the rule, i.e., the individuals which you like to quote as if they were and are the Magisterium.
.
And the last quote I gave is pertinent to the argument, it maintains the Tradition the CC has always held with regard to the Deuteros.
