The Protestant Reformers

[itsjustdave1988]

TertiumQuid,

Luther never repented.

Perhaps. However, only God knows if he died impenitent or not. A perfect act of contrition is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins so long as there’s at least an implied intent to confess your sins.

According to the above quote, Luther cannot become a participant in eternal life.

Only if he died impenitent of mortal sin could he be excluded from eternal life.

How is it possible then for you to conclude that Luther is your brother in Christ?

Because he was validly baptized, therefore, truly a Christian. A separated brother is still our brother, one who deserves our prayers.

Pope Leo and the Council of Florence seem at odds with itsjustDave.

That’s your opinion. However, I believe it is erroneous.

According to Catholic theology, the souls of those who die in mortal sin or merely in original sin descend imeediately to hell. Perhaps Luther died in such a state, perhaps not. Only God knows.

Neither Pope Leo nor the Fathers at Florence ever asserted that it was impossible for a heretic to repent. That would be odd for the Fathers at Florence since this was a council which included heretics and schismatic, attempting to reconcile the breaches in unity that occured in the past.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Seems to me I dismantled your comparrison of Luther and Cajetan.

I don’t see how. Have you even quoted from Cajetan to give us his understanding of Scripture and compared it to Luther? Did Cajetan create his own bible, placing books the Council of Florence included among its list of Biblical books into an appendix, then contrasting them to the “the genuine sacred books” as Luther did?

Can you provide the quotes from Cajetan that assert what Luther asserts here:

From Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, vol. 6. pp. 363 ff., tr. C.M. Jacobs …

From Luther’s preface to the Book of Revelation:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ325.HTM

I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . .

It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep.

. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, – Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, ‘Ye shall be my witnesses.’ Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

(Jacobs, ibid., 488-489)

Again from Luther …

Therefore St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)

And from Luther according to John Dillenberger, editor *Martin Luther : Selections from His writings *(Garden City N.Y. Doubleday Anchor, 1961
matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

**This defect **proves that the epistle [of James] is not of apostolic provenance. …

He [the author of Ep. of James] does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. … I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my bible

 

[Antonio_B]

Salmon:

go leafs go,
I think this is what you are looking for:

Characters of the Reformation

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

by Hilaire Belloc

Peace in Christ…Salmon

An excellent book precisely because Belloc was NOT politically correct!

Antonio :clapping:

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Dave,

Did Cajetan create his own bible, placing books the Council of Florence included among its list of Biblical books into an appendix, then contrasting them to the “the genuine sacred books” as Luther did?

C’mon Dave, Luther translated the entire Bible, but put the books in different order, and included “prefaces”. You would have an argument if Luther left books out of the Bible, he did not. As the editors of Luther’s Works point out:

In providing prefaces for the books in the German Bible, Luther was simply following a traditional practice. The inclusion of a prologue illuminating the main thoughts of a treatise was a practice associated with the best in scholarly exposition as far back as Aristotle. Jerome’s Vulgate had prefaces to almost every book in the Bible, plus others for groups of books such as Paul’s epistles and the seven catholic epistles… The second edition of Erasmus’ New Testament in 1518 began with one hundred twenty folio pages of introductory material. (Source LW 35:231)

Your Luther studies need to deal with and synthesize this quote into your mass of facts:

…therefore I cannot include (James) among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

In regards to Luther’s attitude on Revelation, I suggest you go to the primary sources next time. Get out your copy of LW 35. You could have read Luther in context. You would have read:

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment…

-snip-

“Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago…”

Footnote from the editors of LW: “The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by others as Eusebius reports. Cf. p. 400, n. 63. Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.”
(Source: LW 35:298)

More importantly, you would have seen that the snippets you culled from Armstrong are from Luther’s preface of 1522. Luther went on to write a much longer preface for Revelation in 1530. Read it, and you will find Luther’s attitude much different. You would have found that Luther treats the book as divine revelation. This reminds me to e-mail DA, and ask him to revise his paper.

Interestingly, I don’t even agree with Luther’s points on the canon, or the entirety of his method. However, it is important to put Luther in his context and see exactly what he said. He translated the entire Bible, even the apocrypha, and simply put in some prefaces. Bid deal. No one was denied access to the Scriptures in Luther’s transaltion of the Bible. Luther even said he didn’t “prevent anyone from including or extolling” James. As to Revelation he said, “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment…”

Thus, you really need to rethink this:

If Luther had done nothing but hold that some books of the canon were not inspired, he would not have been a heretic (prior to Trent). Unfortunately, his heresy was more profound than merely holding opinions similar to Cardinal Cajetan with regard to the inspiration of some books of Scripture.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Antonio B:

An excellent book precisely because Belloc was NOT politically correct!

Hi Antonio,

I do not have this book. What about it do you like so much?

Thanks,
James Swan

 

[GKC]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Antonio,

I do not have this book. What about it do you like so much?

Thanks,
James Swan

Greetings TertiumQuid,

I’m not Antonio, but I’m a long time Belloc fan and collector. Here’s my take on CHARACTERS.

CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION was the 2nd (I think) book of Belloc’s that I bought, 40 years ago. It is a collection of short (8-10 pages) vignettes and character studies of 23 major and minor participants in the Reformation, plus a few years more. It has all the strengths and weakness of Belloc’s histories, colorful, vivid language, a definite partisan viewpoint, facts, assertions, and insights that no one can argue with, assertions that lots of people can argue with, no footnotes or references or citations. As usual, you get history by Belloc. Which is not always the same as history.

To understand history, you need to read more than just a one sided view, however much fun that might be. Else you might as well depend solely on James Froude (an anti-RC historian in many ways like Belloc, though with useful footnotes). I say this as one who has collected Belloc for about 40 years. He a great read, and was a great personality. But, if you read him on Henry VIII, for example, you need to read Scarisbrick or Pollard, too. In a recent book on the major members of Henry’s court, there is a brief mention of Belloc’s CRANMER in the bibilography, where it is referred to as “laughable”. It’s not that bad, but it is true that you have to balance Belloc a little.

GKC

 

[Antonio_B]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Antonio,

I do not have this book. What about it do you like so much?

Thanks,
James Swan

If Belloc had written his books after Vatican II, he would have expressed himself in very politically correct jargon. As it is, he expresses himself with great liberty, a liberty not always appreciated today by a “nuanced” type of Catholic.

Antonio

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TertiumQuid,

C’mon Dave, Luther translated the entire Bible, but put the books in different order, and included “prefaces”. …

You’re dodging the issue.

Let’s review … I stated:

Luther made up his own canon. Cardinal Cajetan did not. Yet, Cardinal Cajetan did indeed believe that some books of the canon of Scripture were not inspired. His opinion (held prior to Trent) was not heretical, nor did it re-establish the canon of Scripture, as the canons of the Church do not rely upon the opinions of theologians, but upon the judgment of the Church.

You made this ridiculous and self-serving claim …

Seems to me I dismantled your comparrison of Luther and Cajetan.

Prove it.

I quoted Luther who demoted Biblical books to an appendix [thereby, making up his own “true canon”]. He described the Epistle of James as doing “violence to Scripture,” an “epistle of straw,” having "nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it … I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my bible"; and of the Book of Revelation he wrote, I “**can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it … ** Christ is not taught or known in it.”

Did Cajetan demote Biblical books to an appendix, yes or no?

Cajetan certainly “[questioned] the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, the genuineness of the passage of the three witnesses of (I John, v, 7), etc” (Catholic Encyclopedia - “Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan”).

However, did Cajetan ever describe any Biblical book as doing “violence to Scripture,” “epistle of straw,” “can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it”, etc., yes or no? If yes, then provide the quote and source. If you can, perhaps Luther and Cajetan have more in common than I thought. Until then, your so-called “dismantling” of my comparison is rather unconvincing.

I don’t know why you felt the need to discuss prefaces, other than to change the subject away from an indefensible position. I have no problem with prefaces to Scripture. I do find Luther’s demotion of Biblical texts rather arrogant, however. I also find the actual opinions Luther expressed in his prefaces rather unpious.

Where Luther went terribly wrong is that, unlike Jerome, he failed to follow the judgment of the Churches as having greater authority than his mere personal opinion.

You quoted Luther as follows:

…therefore I cannot include (James) among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

If this were all he wrote, he’d be less a fool. Unfortunately, he also described James as doing “violence to Scripture … I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my bible.”

There are “good sayings” in C.S. Lewis’ books, but that doesn’t mean we can “include” Lewis’ works in the Bible “as we please.” The problem with Luther is that he thought he could decide for himself which books are the Word of God and which books are merely “good sayings.” It isn’t up to every individual to either accept only the parts of God’s Word that we find agreeable, whether entire books, or chapters, or verses of Scripture, merely because you can detect “nothing in the nature of Gospel about them.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TertiumQuid,

Perhaps part of your confusion resides in what you think I asserted about Luther. You seem to think I asserted that he removed books from his Bible. I did not. What I stated was that Luther removed books from his canon. In other words, he made up his own personal canon. To disprove my claim, you “proved” that Luther translated every book, even the apocrypha. Bravo. You’ve thoroughly dismantled a claim I never made. However, try addressing the claim which I actually made. My assertion that Luther omitted Biblical books from his canon is no different than what has been admitted to even by Lutheran scholars. Observe,

Lutheran scholar CFW Walther, first President of the Missouri Synod, wrote in *Lehre und Wehre (*1855, p. 204):

Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. (cited by Francis Pieper, The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena))

Furthermore, as I thought I made clear, Luther’s rather poor conclusion regarding the inspiration of Biblical books was not (prior to Trent) heretical in the canonical sense of the word (note: Cajetan and Erasmus were not charged with heresy for their incorrect conclusions regarding canonical books). Neither was Luther’s foolish act in demoting Biblical books into an appendix heretical.

So when you stated:

you really need to rethink this:

Quote:
If Luther had done nothing but hold that some books of the canon were not inspired, he would not have been a heretic (prior to Trent). Unfortunately, his heresy was more profound than merely holding opinions similar to Cardinal Cajetan with regard to the inspiration of some books of Scripture.

… it seems you’ve misunderstood me, and perhaps it is you that needs to do some re-thinking.

Luther’s profound heresy was due to the offenses detailed in the Bull *Exsurge Domini. *If he did nothing but hold to Cajetan’s opinion of Scripture, Luther would not have been guilty of heresy. He would have been wrong, like Erasmus and Cajetan, but not heretical in the canonical sense, as it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the canon of Scritpure became definitively (i.e., believe or anathema) decreed as a *de fide *dogma of Catholicism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

the snippets you culled from Armstrong are from Luther’s preface of 1522. Luther went on to write a much longer preface for Revelation in 1530. Read it, and you will find Luther’s attitude much different.

I’m so happy that Luther’s scholarship improved with age. If he had lived another 100 years, perhaps his writings would have evolved back to orthodoxy.

Perhaps this is hinted at by Luther here …

I confess… that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was fomerly seen among monks and priests." (WL 9. 1311)

In a letter to Zwingli, Luther writes…

If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." (Contra Zuingli et Oecol., cited in “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy” by Patrick Madrid)

Luther has had moments of clear thinking, it seems.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Itsjustdave said:

only God knows if he (Luther) died impenitent or not. A perfect act of contrition is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins so long as there’s at least an implied intent to confess your sins…Only if he died impenitent of mortal sin could he be excluded from eternal life…the souls of those who die in mortal sin or merely in original sin descend imeediately to hell. Perhaps Luther died in such a state, perhaps not. Only God knows.

Luther never repented. Heiko Oberman has pointed out,

Reverend father, will you die steadfast in Christ and** the doctrines you have preached?" “Yes,” replied the clear voice for the last time. **On February 18, 1546, even as he lay dying in Eisleben, far from home, Martin Luther was not to be spared a final public test, not to be granted privacy even in this last, most personal hour. His longtime confidant Justus Jonas, now pastor in Halle, having hurriedly summoned witnesses to the bedside, shook the dying man by the arm to rouse his spirit for the final exertion. Luther had always prayed for a “peaceful hour”: resisting Satan—the ultimate, bitterest enemy—through that trust in the Lord over life and death which is God’s gift of liberation from the tyranny of sin…. The deathbed in the Eisleben inn had become a stage; and straining their ears to catch Luther’s last words were enemies as well as friends.

Source: Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between god and the Devil, p.3-4

Indeed, only God knows for sure if Luther renounced his doctrine in the last moments of his life. However, history records he did not, and there are no scholarly opinions I know of that have ever suggested it. Now, If Luther’s last words were a confirmation of his adherence to the doctrines he taught, is Luther your Christian brother?

PS- an irony is that if Luther ever did renounce what he taught and preached, and went “home to Rome”, I would not consider him my Christian brother.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Itsjustdave said:

Luther made up his own canon. Cardinal Cajetan did not. Yet, Cardinal Cajetan did indeed believe that some books of the canon of Scripture were not inspired. His opinion (held prior to Trent) was not heretical, nor did it re-establish the canon of Scripture, as the canons of the Church do not rely upon the opinions of theologians, but upon the judgment of the Church.

It is a simple historical fact that Cajetan, Erasmus, and Luther all questioned particular books of the New Testament. Luther questioned them in his prefaces, which were contained in his translation of the scriptures. Erasmus’ did it in his Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament. As I mentioned previously, Cajetan accepted this from Erasmus. Your argument that “Luther made up his own canon. Cardinal Cajetan did not” is a strange argument. Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther all held that certain books were not really Canon. That Luther expressed it through prefaces and ordering of the books qualifies to you as somehow worse than say, Erasmus writing it in a preface to the Greek New Testament. Perhaps Roman Catholics can follow your logic, I cannot. If someone (like Erasmus or Cajetan) believes that a New Testament book does not meet the qualifications for being canonical, are they not questioning the canon? Are they not creating their own canon?

Whether or not Luther put certain books of the Bible in a different order really is beside the point. Whether or not he put them in the back of his Bible is besides the point. All 3 men are guilty of questioning sacred scripture.

What it all comes down to is your unwillingness to be fair with Luther, and consider all he said. You capitalize on anything that will paint him in the most negative light. Luther continually thought about the Canon, and revised his opinion of it- That’s why you blundered earlier by quoting from Luther’s earlier preface on Revelation, without realizing Luther later revised it. Even with the phrase “epistle of straw,” are you aware that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 Luther dropped the paragraphs at the end of his Preface to the New Testament, thus leaving this comment out, as well as leaving out other value judgments on various biblical books? Are you aware that the phrase “violence to Scripture” was dropped by Luther from his James preface after 1522?

You seem to think I’m arguing for the validity of Luther’s opinions on the canon. I am though, only arguing for a fair look at Luther. Any fair-minded person reading Luther’s prefaces (in context) could see that part of Luther’s opinions were due to the same considerations that prompted Erasmus to conclude as he did. Any fair-minded person that studies the revisions of Luther’s prefaces will also realize that Luther’s tone on the books in question softened over the years. Any fair-minded person would observe what J.W. Montgomery did:

Even in his strongest remarks on the four antilegomena (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation), Luther intersperses positive comments and makes quite plain that the question of how to treat these books must be answered by his readers for themselves. If he can speak of James as an “Epistle of straw,” lacking the gospel, he can also say of it—simultaneously: “I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates God’s law.” Since Luther is not exactly the model of the mediating personality— since he is well known for consistently taking a stand where others (perhaps even angels) would equivocate—we can legitimately conclude that the Reformer only left matters as open questions when he really was not certain as to where the truth lay. Luther’s ambivalent approach to the antilegomena is not at all the confident critical posture of today’s rationalistic student of the Bible.

Source: Westminster Theological Journal Volume 36 (Vol. 36, Page 294).

 

[luckyirishguy14]

Well, maybe to get an idea of the early Reformers, I agree with Shibbo. Look at the people before Luther (Albigensians, Waldensians, Huss, Wycliffe, etc.). Then, New Advent has good resources to learn about these guys. You can maybe sink in a moderated form of what these guys taught, then go to the library and read THEIR books (if available). Oh, and maybe read about Henry VIII a bit, too. See what crazy shenanigans (ideas) he was up to in making his “church”.

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

TertiumQuid,

Perhaps part of your confusion resides in what you think I asserted about Luther. You seem to think I asserted that he removed books from his Bible. I did not. .

Your argument against Luther (and your non-arguments against Cajetan and Erasmus) seems to rest on a distinction between inspiration and canonization. As far as i’ve been able to understand you, all 3 of these men questioned (or even stronger “denied”) the inspiration of certain New Testament books. Yet only Luther can be chastised, because of the way he expressed his belief.

If a crucial element of defining which books are canon is whether or not they are inspired, it appears to me that Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan, in effect defined their own canons.

 

[TertiumQuid]

itsjustdave1988:

Perhaps this is hinted at by Luther here …
Quote:
I confess… that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was fomerly seen among monks and priests." (WL 9. 1311)

Sorry to nitpick Dave, but what exactly is “WL 9.1311?” I found a webpage that quotes a larger section of this snippet, but without a reference. I haven’t been able to locate this quote in the 55 volume Luther’s Works (yet).

Perhaps you could pull out your copy of “WL 9” and turn to page 1311 and provide a complete context, or at least give me a hint as to where this snippet can be found in the 55 volume Luther’s Works.

In a letter to Zwingli, Luther writes…
Quote:
If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." (Contra Zuingli et Oecol., cited in “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy” by Patrick Madrid)

Luther has had moments of clear thinking, it seems.

It appears this second quote may be from the same primary source as the first quote you offered. If it is, why would you cite two different secondary sources? Could you please provide the context, so we can be fair with Luther?

If you’re going to cite Luther, i’m hopeful you will treat him like a “Christian brother” and not cite him selectively or out of context, or at least give the readers here a reference to a primary source so we can see if you’re being fair with Luther.

 

[RedGolum]

Trying to nail down Luther’s view on books like James and Revelation, and even the Aprocrapha is very difficult. Until the early 20th century, Lutheran Bibles had all of the disputed Old Testement books in them, with an introduction explaining the various views of theologians. It wasn’t until the begining of the various Marian dogmas that the Lutheran churches in the US began to try to be more different than the Roman Catholics, and one way was to cut out the disputed books.

One question I have asked here a few times, and have yet to see an answer, is if the full OT canon was established in the early 4th or 5th centuary, why do the various Orthodox churches have a slightly different canon?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If Luther’s last words were a confirmation of his adherence to the doctrines he taught, is Luther your Christian brother?

If Luther’s heresy was committed by him with full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin, then his sin was indeed deadly. If he died impenitent of this deadly sin committed with full knowledge and deliberate will, then he’s burning in hell, and is not my Christian brother.

This theology applies to impenitent Catholic priests just as equally as it did for Martin Luther. Once a baptized Christian is damned to hell, then they are no longer Christians.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is a simple historical fact that Cajetan, Erasmus, and Luther all questioned particular books of the New Testament.

Agreed. An neither of them were censured for heresy because of it.

Your argument that “Luther made up his own canon. Cardinal Cajetan did not” is a strange argument.

You may think so. However, your claim that you dismantled it is quite strange to me, since you haven’t given one shred of evidence that Cajetan considered any Biblical book non-canonical.

A “canon” to a Catholic has a far different meaning than one’s private theological opinion. Individual Catholics cannot canonize anything. That authority is solely vested with the Church. For example, Origen never claimed the Shephard of Hermas to have been canonized (likely because it never was), yet he did claim that he believed it to be “divinely inspired.”

ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml#Shepherd_of_Hermas

‘a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired’ . (Comm. in Rom. 10.31, written about 244-6).

If Cajetan claimed that some books were not part of his canon (as Luther did, according to Lutheran sources), then provide the quote and source. I will humbly admit my position is “dismantled” when you actually provide the evidence that dismantles it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sorry to nitpick Dave, but what exactly is “WL 9.1311?”

I may have typed it wrong. I believe the quote was cited by Robert Sungenis in his book *Not by Faith Alone. *I’ll try to find it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RedGolum,

if the full OT canon was established in the early 4th or 5th centuary, why do the various Orthodox churches have a slightly different canon?

Neither the OT nor NT were universally established by the 4th century canons, as these canons were from local synods (of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, for example). Thats why folks like St. John of Damasus didn’t consider the Book of Wisdom or Sirach to be part of the Bible. Whereas, while St. Jerome seemingly disagreed with Pope St. Damasus regarding which books were inspired, he still abided by St. Damasus’ decree and included all the Biblical books decreed at the Synod of Rome into the Latin Vulgate.

It was not until the Council of Florence in the 15th century that a General Council gathered together and declared what books were contained within the OT and NT. The Orthodox Churches were not in full communion with the Roman Pontiff at that time, yet they did attended the Council of Florence in an attempt to become reconciled and re-united as one Catholic Church once again. Although the Papal Bull was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as other Eastern patriarchs, the agreement proved to be only temporary, the agreement did not become effective and unfortunately, the schism continued without acceptance of the authority of this council.

Yet, even after the Council of Florence, Catholic theologians were free to question the authenticity of portions of the canon of Scripture, as it was not promulgated at Florence as a “definitive” *de fide *dogma of Catholicism (i.e., believe or anathema). That wasn’t accomplished until the Council of Trent (which the Orthodox do not accept, either). Thus, the canon remains non-uniform within Orthodoxy (e.g. the Russian Orthodox Bible differs from the Greek Orthodox Bible), as the Orthodox have no Ecumenical Council to point to that they accept which definitively decrees the contents of Sacred Scripture.

Likewise, I have had discussions with a Protestant that does not believe the Epistle of James is part of “his” Bible–a modern-day “Luther,” so to speak. So the Bible, for both Orthodox and Protestants, is described by at least one Protestant scholar (R.C. Sproul, I believe) as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” Which to me, is absurd.