Why Protestants Reject the Deutero-canonical Books

[pablope]

Not sure what the last sentence means in relation to this topic, my point is that all the varying Canons are equally valid, as long as they have Synodal approval by the Church. The Armenian Canon, used by Armenian Catholics and Orthodox alike; the Syriac Canon, used by Syriac Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Syro-Malankara Catholics, Syriac Orthodox, and Malankara Orthodox alike; etc. The varying Canons were never a point of contention within the Communion of Churches, even when they were different for each of the Churches - as long as Communion and unity of Faith were maintained.

I am not really sure what you mean by “Universal Canon”, they varied for each Church in the Catholic Communion, and still do to this day.

Right on. And may I add, the authority of the Church has always been held by its bishops, not the Bible, and the Bible was never intended to replace the authority of bishops.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Per Crucem View Post
The odd thing is that I accept the deuterocanon. I’m still being argued with. Nothing makes you guys happy. Now I know why Zwingli went nuts

I know this feeling, on this subject.

Jon

Well, that is just two of you individuals…how about the generally, all Lutherans, where do they stand?

 

[JonNC]

Well, that is just two of you individuals…how about the generally, all Lutherans, where do they stand?

The standard for Lutheranism has always been, essentially, “a canon within a canon”. that being, that while part of the heritage of our scriptures, the DC books do not rise to the level of homologumena. From a Lutheran perspective, they would not be used to determine doctrine, though they can be used to support it. They are, however, very important in for teaching, and reading, including liturgically.
Per Crucem and I probably give them greater deference than many, but that is within our privilege, just as it was within the privilege of Catholics prior to Trent to not give them great deference.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Yes, I love reseaching the scriptures, and providing Scriptural support, but there is a mentality that thinks we just pull stuff out of a hat. If you asked many of these “Bible Christians”, “who is St Damasus and St Jerome?” They dont have a clue!

Thankfully I don’t run into too many of these.

They can start calling themselves bible churches when they start agreeing with Peter that baptism saves.

And this is just the start…
I haven’t asked this yet…but when I get the argument that local churches in the bible were independent (they usually use Revelation for this). I want to ask them, “How many different Christian Churches were their in Antioch when Paul was there?”
Hint - the answer is one.
How many different Christian Churches are there in any given moderate size city today?
Hint - more than one…
Which is more biblical.

Of course the question I HAVE asked is this - if the local Churches were independent of any central authority - Why did the Church in Antioch not settle the matter of circumcision themselves? Why send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem?
Some interesting conversations there…

The more I look - the more I see that the Catholic Church is the most biblical of them all.

Hi JRKH" I again agree and I do try to be patient with them and I also do not argue with them as that seems never to work. I just do as you said try and plant the seed. The problem that I am referring to is those who want to argue their view and insist that everyone else is incorrect in their thinking and that they because they read and study the Bible know the real truth because they have the Holy Spirit to guide them and everyone else does not. When I say to them I am a Catholic at first they are nice but then the get the anti-Catholic rant going so then it becomes impossible to continue talking to them. So in the end I pray for them that they will see the light of the truth the Catholic Church teaches. Peace.

Oh - yes I know the type you mean - and yes there are times when you just have to let it drop. Fortunately for me, most of my interaction has been on-line which really helps me to keep my emotions under control and address the arguments rather than any body language or insults or whatever…
Still - It can be like talking to a brick wall.

Peace
James

 

[sennincatholic]

:compcoff: What a thread!!!

 

[spina1953]

Thankfully I don’t run into too many of these.

And this is just the start…
I haven’t asked this yet…but when I get the argument that local churches in the bible were independent (they usually use Revelation for this). I want to ask them, “How many different Christian Churches were their in Antioch when Paul was there?”
Hint - the answer is one.
How many different Christian Churches are there in any given moderate size city today?
Hint - more than one…
Which is more biblical.

Of course the question I HAVE asked is this - if the local Churches were independent of any central authority - Why did the Church in Antioch not settle the matter of circumcision themselves? Why send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem?
Some interesting conversations there…

The more I look - the more I see that the Catholic Church is the most biblical of them all.

Oh - yes I know the type you mean - and yes there are times when you just have to let it drop. Fortunately for me, most of my interaction has been on-line which really helps me to keep my emotions under control and address the arguments rather than any body language or insults or whatever…
Still - It can be like talking to a brick wall.

Peace
James

Hi JRKH: Thanks for your thoughts. I thought that your would know these things I was referring to. Sometimes I think it would be better to talk to a brick wall as at least they do not argue or rant. peace

 

[spina1953]

That is a good point you make here. Such a subject makes it difficult to remain on topic in this discussion.

It should be noted however that the Western Catholic liturgical canon laws are separate from the Eastern Catholic liturgical canon laws, which is relative to the subject you raised.

The other question is why the diverse canonical books that are used in each ones liturgy? That is a subject that takes on a case by case study.

Trying to keep it short here; Before the persecution laws against the Catholic Church were lifted by Pagan Rome. Many of these Church communities you mentioned suffered and were secluded from the Popes and other apostolic sees. During which time, some of them introduced later writings into their liturgies that were proven to be Gnostic writings and false gospels with original apostles names attached.

Those who followed Marcion’s teachings removed the Old Testament all together, when Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel and other New Testament books. It was subjects like these and many others which included the Jews trying to discredit Jesus as a false prophet who quoted from the Greek text of the LXX and not the Hebrew Text, which moved the Church to council for the canonization of her liturgical books.

If your Church Father’s present at the Church councils could prove their liturgical books met the Canon, many of these were easily proven, others were rejected and proven heretical or not inspired. It is from these early councils that heretics and heterodoxy was exposed but that is another subject.

Then comes the subject of capital “T” Tradition and small “t” that allows the freedom of each apostolic successor to maintain their Liturgy from these traditions which introduces the diverse canonical books used in each Apostolic See, that other Church communities were already following since their original apostle evangelized them. This subject introduces Liturgical practice according to each ones culture and language that maintained it’s apostolic authenticity which proved it’s Liturgical canon.

Universal = Catholic Canon. I relate this term to the Canon that was approved multiple times in Church councils throughout the centuries beginning from 382 a.d. This Canon was approved when the Empire was one and all the apostolic sees world wide were still in full communion with the Chair of Peter as one.

Each time the books came into question, the Church council’s, and the Church maintained the Canon when the Popes ratified them in different centuries, settling the disputes in every age. Trent finally had enough with Luther’s renaming the Deutero books as Apocrypha, that She placed a self anathema to anyone else who ever disputes them again.

What varies? is in the canon of each ones apostolic liturgy. The Catholic Church counseled approved canon never varies, recorded history attests this fact.

This present canon is unchanged since 382 a.d officially declared them canonical, which is a miracle in itself, proves their authenticity, that survived every onslaught man could ever deliver to the Catholic Church’s canon of Inspired books of the bible, unchanged to today.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12: Great posts Good information.

 

[spina1953]

The argument I usually hear is that the CC added these books at the Council of Trent. This is based on the argument that any other prior councils that listed the books of the Bible were local synods and not binding on the entire Church. The fact that they were in the Vulgate for like a thousand years prior to the Council of Trent does not seem to impress those that hold to this argument.

OH, I forgot, I think the “Bible Answer Man” says one of the reason they should not be in the Bible is that they are not inspired.

NOW - what I have always struggled with is why the Orthodox have still more OT books (like Maccabees 3). I am guessing the Eastern Churches did not use the Vulgate?

Hi ajcstr: I agree. I have heard that Catholic’s added books to the Bible. I have also heard that the DC books are not inspired and also heard that since they were not in the Hebrew Bible they are not sacred writings. yet, nearly since the beginning the Church has not only used these books but continued to call them inspired up to the time of Trent when it was closed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi ajcstr: I agree. I have heard that Catholic’s added books to the Bible. I have also heard that the DC books are not inspired and also heard that since they were not in the Hebrew Bible they are not sacred writings. yet, nearly since the beginning the Church has not only used these books but continued to call them inspired up to the time of Trent when it was closed.

Amen spina1953; “Do not be afraid” said the Master. There exists no weapon formed against us, that God has not already defeated. From what I have read from your own postings God has placed you on an immovable Rock.

God bless you and peace be with you

Gabe;

 

[rcwitness]

Wow, I want to answer that in the positive. Pope Damasus does not do this upon his own. The Pope can only hand down what was handed down to him from Peter and the apostles. We can’t isolate each Pope on his own, when it comes to the Apostolic Sacred Traditions and biblical revelations of Jesus who reveals them to Peter and the Apostles.

Was Pope Damasus instrumental in bringing about the canonized books, yes. But it is the Popes presiding in Peter’s Chair which binds and looses them on earth, when Jesus binds and looses them in heaven. When Peter speaks, all fell silent, that’s biblical.

Your point is well taken. To tell you the truth, I was already prepared to acknowledge this point which I thought Per Crucem was going to make.

I did not mean to imply that Jerome and Damasus single handedly initiated the desire to establish a sure canon or infaillibly declare what was canon by themselves. I was trying more to recognize possibly the most important milestone in unifying the Scriptures into what was eventually Confirmed as the complete Written Sacred Scripture.

If anyone would like to express the specific role these two Saints did play in the history of the Canon of Scripture, I would love to learn more. I realize that Jerome had his personal reservations regarding the DC’s being placed on the same level as the other 66 books, but submitted to the decission of the Bishop seemingly whole heartedly.

The impression I do have, is that there was a smaller group of Scripture already recognized as Sacred Tradition yet not determined to be a conclussive canon. The Books which Jerome translated into the Vulgate and Damasus approved (and even instructed regarding including the DC’s) was the first time the Canon, which was ever since recognized and declared unchangeable in Trent, was formed.

 

[spina1953]

Amen spina1953; “Do not be afraid” said the Master. There exists no weapon formed against us, that God has not already defeated. From what I have read from your own postings God has placed you on an immovable Rock.

God bless you and peace be with you

Gabe;

Gabriel of 12: Thank you for your very kind words. I try my best not just understand, ;learn but also to bring to the table so to speak, that which I have learned and believe. I am truly thankful to God fro my faith and it will stay with me forever. As a Descalsed Carmelite secular ,its way of life compels me to help bring God in all His truth to those who do not know or think they know but don’t. I do not pretend to know all the answers but only that which I do know.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12: Thank you for your very kind words. I try my best not just understand, ;learn but also to bring to the table so to speak, that which I have learned and believe. I am truly thankful to God fro my faith and it will stay with me forever. As a Descalsed Carmelite secular ,its way of life compels me to help bring God in all His truth to those who do not know or think they know but don’t. I do not pretend to know all the answers but only that which I do know.

Well, well, I sensed something about you; I too studied under the Carmelites and remain devoted to the daily Liturgy of hours prayer, which I learned from the Carmelites. I am no longer an active member, and I sure miss the silent retreats.

Bringing Christ to others in the way of life when all else fails, we use words…

Which brings us to this forum. I learn something new each time I visit the forums, many times it’s the simplest posts that become the most profound ones to me.

Our OP is an interesting subject that many posters have posted great insights, including our separated brethren.

I’m hoping to view more here from the protestant view. Hope to see on other threads

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

rcwitness;11979274] If anyone would like to express the specific role these two Saints did play in the history of the Canon of Scripture, I would love to learn more. I realize that Jerome had his personal reservations regarding the DC’s being placed on the same level as the other 66 books, but submitted to the decission of the Bishop seemingly whole heartedly.

I will see about sending you a PM with some excellent sites that cover your subject here. This new computer I have does not have all my downloads yet from my old computer. Or I would post them for you. On another note the biblical commentary of St Jerome by Raymond Brown has many subjects covering this topic. I am not a great fan of Raymond Brown, but his biblical scholarly work is uncontested.

The impression I do have, is that there was a smaller group of Scripture already recognized as Sacred Tradition yet not determined to be a conclussive canon. The Books which Jerome translated into the Vulgate and Damasus approved (and even instructed regarding including the DC’s) was the first time the Canon, which was ever since recognized and declared unchangeable in Trent, was formed.

Yes there were Saints holding to certain canons, such as Mileto, Ignatius etc…early on during the persecution, before the Catholic Church counseled the whole Canon of scripture. These canons are not discounted, and they enter the later Church’s whole canon of scripture. Except most biblical scholars comment that they could not understand why 3 Maccabees kept showing up through out the centuries.

Protestants who reject the Deutero’s rarely visit this Catholic history, because it proves their false date of the canon wrong.

The early canons were used when the Church suffered persecution in each different geographical location, when communication between Rome and other apostolic see’s proved difficult.

When the persecution was lifted, Providence placed the whole Catholic Church on the same page, Thus the Canon we know today.

Peace be with you

 

[spina1953]

Well, well, I sensed something about you; I too studied under the Carmelites and remain devoted to the daily Liturgy of hours prayer, which I learned from the Carmelites. I am no longer an active member, and I sure miss the silent retreats.

Bringing Christ to others in the way of life when all else fails, we use words…

Which brings us to this forum. I learn something new each time I visit the forums, many times it’s the simplest posts that become the most profound ones to me.

Our OP is an interesting subject that many posters have posted great insights, including our separated brethren.

I’m hoping to view more here from the protestant view. Hope to see on other threads

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12: Yes, I am a Descalsed Carmelite Secular and do pray the hours, but do so four times a day because it helps me to stay on the right track. I too learn something new many from the most simple posts where Catholic or not… I am on other threads that are similar. I think if one can come to better understanding of the issue and not just speak from whatever they have heard or from anyone who has written anything on the subject while not giving any true or accurate facts is always a good thing.

peace and blessings to you.

 

[rcwitness]

I will see about sending you a PM with some excellent sites that cover your subject here. This new computer I have does not have all my downloads yet from my old computer. Or I would post them for you. On another note the biblical commentary of St Jerome by Raymond Brown has many subjects covering this topic. I am not a great fan of Raymond Brown, but his biblical scholarly work is uncontested.

That’s kind of you. Or maybe i’ll end up opening a related thread. Im also interested in the “Matthew Bible” by John Rogers and details surrounding it. We’ll see

Thanks Gabe

 

[ajcstr]

Another issue is how many protestants even realize that these books WERE IN the bible long before the Council of Trent. I have a friend who is a Presbyterian I believe, and he looks at me like I have 3 heads when I tell him this. But he will read a “Bible Answer Man” type snip it and that’s the end of story (talk about infallibility). He won’t actually read the history behind it. Added at Trent, that’s it !

 

[brittrossiter]

Another issue is how many protestants even realize that these books WERE IN the bible long before the Council of Trent. I have a friend who is a Presbyterian I believe, and he looks at me like I have 3 heads when I tell him this. But he will read a “Bible Answer Man” type snip it and that’s the end of story (talk about infallibility). He won’t actually read the history behind it. Added at Trent, that’s it !

Indeed. I cannot speak for Protestants, as I am Orthodox, but I can state that Orthodoxy has always recognized these books as constituting part of the Bible (and a very beautiful part at that).

If a Protestant were to argue that these books were a late addition to the canon by the Catholic Church in later centuries, whether at Trent or otherwise, then how would one account for the recognition of these very same books as part of the Bible by the Orthodox, who have not been in communion with Rome since 1054?

 

[ajcstr]

Indeed. I cannot speak for Protestants, as I am Orthodox, but I can state that Orthodoxy has always recognized these books as constituting part of the Bible (and a very beautiful part at that).

If a Protestant were to argue that these books were a late addition to the canon by the Catholic Church in later centuries, whether at Trent or otherwise, then how would one account for the recognition of these very same books as part of the Bible by the Orthodox, who have not been in communion with Rome since 1054?

Now, you guys accept more that just these 7 books, are there 3 more?

 

[JonNC]

Indeed. I cannot speak for Protestants, as I am Orthodox, but I can state that Orthodoxy has always recognized these books as constituting part of the Bible (and a very beautiful part at that).

If a Protestant were to argue that these books were a late addition to the canon by the Catholic Church in later centuries, whether at Trent or otherwise, then how would one account for the recognition of these very same books as part of the Bible by the Orthodox, who have not been in communion with Rome since 1054?

I would agree. While Trent may have set the canon in stone for those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, that doesn’t mean they were not considered canon by many, minority views notwithstanding.
I also agree they are quite beautiful, and inspiring. I feel the same way about the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[adawgj]

Because our Bibles take forever to read. Who wants to read seven more books?