Where did they get that idea?

[jmcrae]

I don’t actually know what the normative canon was. There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that suggests the normative canon did not include the deutero’s or at the very least during the middle ages there appears to have been an abandonement of the deutero’s.

I disagree, since I see that the Books of Judith and Wisdom are quoted in the Marian Psalter, which has been in use since at least the 1300s AD if not earlier, and the Liturgy of the Hours (in use since the time of the Desert Fathers, in the mid-100s AD) makes use of the Wisdom literature of the Deuterocanon during the Season of Advent, and during Ordinary Time after Epiphany. Obviously, the lay people were using them quite regularly, even if they weren’t in common use among scholars. Do we know what the readings of the Mass were, back then? I have a feeling they must have been using them at Mass as well, if they were in the LIturgy of the Hours (since the Mass and the Hours seem to borrow from each other quite a bit.)

 

[JonNC]

They sometimes vary among themselves. Both Catholics and Orthodox affirm that at least 73 books are divinely inspired. I am not aware of any definition excluding the possibility of others?

I agree, but if there was a dogmatic list of the canon prior to the schism, one would think that Orthodox and Catholic canons would have to be the same. Wouldn’t adding to the canon be as bad as “removing” from it? They obviously felt no restriction to designate a different canon prior to the schism, and of course Trent was irrelevent since it wasn’t a truly ecumenical council.

Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

I disagree, since I see that the Books of Judith and Wisdom are quoted in the Marian Psalter, which has been in use since at least the 1300s AD if not earlier, and the Liturgy of the Hours (in use since the time of the Desert Fathers, in the mid-100s AD) makes use of the Wisdom literature of the Deuterocanon during the Season of Advent, and during Ordinary Time after Epiphany. Obviously, the lay people were using them quite regularly, even if they weren’t in common use among scholars. Do we know what the readings of the Mass were, back then? I have a feeling they must have been using them at Mass as well, if they were in the LIturgy of the Hours (since the Mass and the Hours seem to borrow from each other quite a bit.)

I’m not sure what the Marian Psalter is. Could you briefly explain?

I have some knowledge of the Liturgy of the Hours but don’t know if every reading must be from canonical scripture. Maybe you can comment?

I don’t know what the mass reading are back then. It’s’ something I’ve been meaning to look into but just haven’t gotten to it yet. To tell the truth I’m not sure where to begin.

Anyway, my understanding of the issue is that there were some (majority or minority seems to be debateable) who believed that the deutero’s were useful for edification but not for basing doctrine one. I don’t know of anyone who totally rejected the deutero’s. I don’t think the reformers completely abandoned them either.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure what the Marian Psalter is. Could you briefly explain?

It’s a very simplified version of the Liturgy of the Hours, originally intended for use by lay women. Today, it’s available for anyone who wants to use it, and is published under the title Little Office of the Blessed Virgin. It’s especially recommended for people who wear the Brown Scapular.

 

[SemperReformada]

It’s a very simplified version of the Liturgy of the Hours, originally intended for use by lay women. Today, it’s available for anyone who wants to use it, and is published under the title Little Office of the Blessed Virgin. It’s especially recommended for people who wear the Brown Scapular.

Thanks.

 

[Madaglan]

The so-called deuterocanonical books of the Bible were in the Septuagint, used by the early Christians and widely considered to be divinely translated (St. Augustine held this view as well).

 

[aspirant]

I agree, but if there was a dogmatic list of the canon prior to the schism, one would think that Orthodox and Catholic canons would have to be the same.

The lists I am aware of are written in a way that includes, not excludes.

Wouldn’t adding to the canon be as bad as “removing” from it?

Some books have been excluded from addition, but I’m unaware of any definitive list that says “only these and no more.”

 

[JonNC]

Some books have been excluded from addition, but I’m unaware of any definitive list that says “only these and no more.”

That’s curious. So, it was ok for Luther to include The Prayer of Manasses in his translation, along with the D-C books?

Jon

 

[aspirant]

I’m not aware of the Prayer of Mannasseh being specifically excluded.