That’s interesting. So in a way, Anglicans, although they don’t actually consider the apocrypha equal to the canonical books, actually officially prescribe their members to read more books than the Catholic Church does.
Depends on the Anglicans, as usual. Historically, Anglicans have used the apocrypha for readings in the service. They would note the difference by concluding the reading with “here endeth the lesson” instead of the usual “the Word of God.” Many do not do this. We have never read from the Deuterocanon in my ACNA church, and I don’t think I can remember a single time we did in the Episcopal Church in which I was raised. Personally, I wish we did. But my church doesn’t follow the lectionary, instead picking the non-Gospel reading based on what the rector wants to preach about. Drives me crazy.
Before our small APA mission closed, we regularly read from the DC’s. Historically, Lutheran churches have, as well. That, in and of itself, qualifies them as “canonical “.Prodigal1984:
Depends on the Anglicans, as usual. Historically, Anglicans have used the apocrypha for readings in the service. They would note the difference by concluding the reading with “here endeth the lesson” instead of the usual “the Word of God.” Many do not do this. We have never read from the Deuterocanon in my ACNA church, and I don’t think I can remember a single time we did in the Episcopal Church in which I was raised. Personally, I wish we did. But my church doesn’t follow the lectionary, instead picking the non-Gospel reading based on what the rector wants to preach about. Drives me crazy.
We do.
I’m in what I’d describe as a low-church evangelical Anglican Church. Our rector has decided he doesn’t have to follow the rules. It’s really frustrating me.
Perhaps people here have different definitions of the word “canonical.”
Well I don’t know what to tell you. We’re both looking at the same image - they’re objectively not included with the rest of Holy Scripture.
Yes he does consider them disputed. But it’s difficult to say he considered them sacred: let’s not forget his editorial decisions which do not put them in a favorable light. He cordoned them off in their own section at the end, and then said “These are not of Apostolic Origin” (“nicht Sanct Paulus noch einiges Apostels”) and “this one [James] directly contradicts all other writings” (“stracks wider St. Paul um und alle ander Schrift”). He wasn’t being neutral.
It’s true he states his opinion (“Aber dass ich meine Meinung darauf stelle”), but he is also printing the first mass translation of the Bible into German, which means his decisions are binding on all his audience.
There seems to be different usages of the term. Cardinal Cajetan:JonNC:
Perhaps people here have different definitions of the word “canonical.”
I think in many ways, this reflects Luther’s view as well. Important for the teaching of the people, but not to be used regarding doctrine other than to confirm. Canonical in that sense.
I’ve always found this to be a kind of silly definition, though. It’s the same tack the Articles take. It’s ultimately saying “it’s authoritative when it agrees with the rest of our doctrine, but not when it disagrees.” I could make the same claim of Aesop’s fables or an engineering textbook. It’s really just saying “these are pretty good books.”
You’re looking at it from a modern apologists view. Do you consider Cajetan in the same category? It is the included as part of scripture. Even the Lutheran Confessions speak of these and the DCs as scripture.
Which he always says is his opinion, not binding on others. Luther clearly does not believe he has the power to change the canon. It is always about his view of the books.
Who said he was being neutral? Cajetan wasn’t neutral either. If he wanted to remove them, he would have. No one has ever accused him of being timid.
Oh, nonsense. People who could read his translation could also read his commentaries, where he makes clear it is his opinion.
I think it’s more a reflection of their historical standing.JonNC:
I’ve always found this to be a kind of silly definition, though. It’s the same tack the Articles take. It’s ultimately saying “it’s authoritative when it agrees with the rest of our doctrine, but not when it disagrees.” I could make the same claim of Aesop’s fables or an engineering textbook. It’s really just saying “these are pretty good books.”
I have an old (1858) Book of Common Prayer that includes a section listing the “lessons” (readings) for every day of the year, morning and evening. With the exception of movable feasts and some saints’ days, for which special passages have been chosen, they simply read the whole of the OT , chapter by chapter, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31. The NT readings follow a similar pattern, with the difference that the 27 books are read through three times in the year, four months at a time.
That is indeed what we’re supposed to do. Argh.
Forgive me, I have no idea who Cajetan is.
I think he did. A writing is either Holy Scripture or it’s not. There is no middle ground. And if it is, you should be able to put it with the rest of the holy books without qualification. This Luther did not do.
So what? Who cares what they say? Protestantism is a heresy. Is your faith so fragile that it is hurt by those who disagree?