Do you agree that simple quotation or lack thereof established nothing as to the canonocity of the scripture/book in question?
They shouldn’t have based on what, since it was the Church that allowed and permitted the canon to be debated? We can’t project back to pre-Trent times the limits put into place by Trent, nor can we hold those living before Trent accountable to it.
I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong on this point.
Theologians debate many things all the time. It doesn’t mean the question of divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books was not already settled by an Ecumenical Council.
It makes no difference to me whether they did or didn’t. The inspiration of all the books in the Catholic Old Testament was already established, and Trent’s decree reaffirmed the same books.
Jerome claimed the objections were not his, but the Jews’. But even if he was not being honest on that point, it would make no difference.
I’ve seen nothing here to prove they did not know. But even if they were not aware that the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books was already a settled matter, so what? No one has ever claimed that Council fathers are omniscient. Even if they were completely ignorant regarding the previous Council’s answer to the question, the previous Council’s answer still stood.
I was trying to demonstrate that New Testament authors used those books, so why should we discount them totally? Were there any other writings that the authors of the New Testament used?
The divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books was defined by Ecumenical Council before Trent, before the birth of Martin Luther.
Paul quotes works that are not divinely inspired, e.g. in Acts 17.
Then why were theologians from Jerome to Cajetan allowed to dispute their canonicity? Obviously, they were permitted to do so by the Church. It only seems to be an issue with regard to Luther disputing them, even though he do no more and no less in this way than anyone else. He even took the time and effort to translate them and include them in his publication of the Bible into German.
Jerome said he did not. As for Cajetan, does it matter?
The Church doesn’t forbid debate. In many cases, debate is encouraged.
Debate is fine. If he actually denied their divine inspiration, he erred. That would be at least materially heretical. (Whether it was formally heretical would depend on other factors.)
Good.
I’ve been in plenty of discussions where faithful Catholics debated issues like these without rejecting the Church’s teaching. Debates have not ended.
Questioning is no problem.
It does if Luther did not accept the Church’s teaching that the books are inspired.
As long as he accepted the Church’s teaching on the matter, questioning would not be a problem.
He was negative toward them because he was heavily influenced by the Palestinian Jews. The Palestinian Jews were excluding them because the Jews who read them were converting in droves to Christianity! That’s why the Jews were excluding them - Jerome mistakenly thought they had other reasons for excluding them (like that there were no Hebrew originals) but that has since been proven false - the Hebrew originals have been found.
You are right- the Councils weren’t infallible, But Pope Innocent I was infallible, and he was the one who promulgated the final canon of the New Testament to the whole world. He did not infallibly declare the canon of the Old Testament, however he did command St. Jerome to translate all 73 books, and obviously (since we have them) St. Jerome obeyed him.
He was the Bishop of Hippo; it makes sense that at the very least he presided over the Council of Hippo.
I may be wrong about Augustine but I am pretty sure a pope did not preside over Carthage or Hippo. I guess I should have left it as Augustine attended?
I’m sure you’re correct. The Pope asked for those Councils to be called, but they were presided over by their local Bishops. St. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo, so it makes sense that he presided at the Council of Hippo.
Not necessarily. Some Protestants would say councils are irrelevent, and that their communion makes the determination of what is and isn’t inspired. My own personal take is that the early councils are important, as was St. Jerome in this matter.
As I said, some would say the councils don’t matter. It is fact, however, that many questioned the D-C books from Jerome down through history. Seems to me there is a reason why they are called “second” canon.
I understand what you are saying, and I frankly have misgivings about Lutherans (can’t and won’t speak for other Protestants) not having the D-C books in our Bibles. You comment does beg the question as to why Orthodox Churches have canons that vary from Rome.
Seems to me you made a positve contribution.
Jerome did translate the deutero’s, that’s a fact which you and I agree upon. But that’s not the whole story with regards to the duetero’s, Jerome, Innocent, and the Vulgate.
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.
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?
As for the authoritive councils and deciding what to accept and what to reject you only need to look at your own churches history. From the time of Hippo and Carthage all the way up to Trent there were loyal and learened Catholics which rejected the deutero’s. It’s not as if Protestants are the only ones who have rejected the duetero’s.
