Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
Paul says what??
The accepted Catholic Bible included the Deuterocanonical books since the 4th century, and this even without a dogmatic decree. There was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent because there was no need for one; the Deuterocanonical books were accepted by Catholics as part of the Bible.
Again, as daniel1212 has shown this is not an accurate statement.
Isolated reservations by individual theologians do not negate the general acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books. They were included in the Vulgate Bible and were used as Sacred Scripture in the Church's liturgies. There was no great debate or controversy over this issue between the 4th century and Trent.
The two are simply not analogous. We are not speaking about teachings that are often questioned but require assent of mind ansd will, but an issue that manifestly could see varied scholarly opinions as one unsettled. Nor are we dealing with some liberals who want to sanction birth control, but highly esteemed men who were manifestly free to disagree about the status of apocryphal books down thru centuries and right into Trent.
Besides those already cited,
mong those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:
►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)
►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)
Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63
►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836
►Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.
Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)
►Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. — Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)
Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan
And just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction.
It also amuses me that in their attempt to claim that the Catholic Church only defined the canon of the Bible at Trent, that they ignore the Council of Florence in 1442.
What is not amusing is how Catholic will disagree with what their own scholarly sources attest to, and great men of hers taught, as cited, in preference to what they can only wish they would say. Which means all the sources and men I cited were (and are) in dissent from your church.
Do you really think that everything a general council states is infallible? Far from it, even the argument a pope uses in making an accepted infallible argument are not held to be infallible themselves as per RC theology.
Your own Catholic Answer (surprisingly, but likely because had been reproved), states,
In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their eanonicity. - https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/canon-of-the-holy-scriptures#.28a.29_In_the_Council_of_Florence
Also,
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the only infallible aspect of the Council was the decree of union between the Greeks and Latins, Laetentur caeli. It states: ‘Laetentur caeli is an infallible document, the only one of the Council’ (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume V, Florence, p. 973). The first infallible decision, from a Roman Catholic perspective, was the Council of Trent. The English Translator of the Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder O.P., makes this statement regarding Trent and the canon: ‘The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, p. 17, Footnote #4 - https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/savingfaithandrome/rcchurchandrcfaith/).
However, perhaps you represent one of the Catholic schisms who reject past and present authorities who disagree with your judgment of what valid church teaching is, and thus you can affirm Florence which, in contradiction to V2, stated,
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; - Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), p. 230, #714
Now that should be considered infallible, and if you agree with it as written, means that you must consign us evangelicals to be headed for eternal damnation. But if you disagree with what it plainly says, then it opens up an interpretive can of worms.
So do you reject Francis as a valid pope?
More precisely, it was only at Trent that repeated Roman Catholic teachings says the canon was dogmatically declared, and I did not merely note is, but well substantiated it, and not be some shameless poper.
And states "It firmly believes, professes and preaches" 5 times, such as in imagining we are all in damnation, but does not use that language when listing books, nor does its anathema clause after the section refer to the issue of the canon, nor is dissent from it anywhere mentioned as cause for anathema. (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461)
Again I will repeat, isolated reservations do not negate that there was a general acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books by the Catholic Church. Cardinal Cajetan et al. may have been esteemed, but their reservations do not negate the general consensus that existed before them.
For since its judgments were manifestly wrong about what the NT church believed, then why should its judgments on the canon of Scripture (which writings are of God) necessarily be believed?
They no more warrant belief than all the judgments of who was of God by those who sat in the seat of Moses did., despite their own pedigree and being the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation.
You keep ignoring my point. It was not that Florence dogmatically defined the canon, but rather that there was a general consensus since the 4th century, and that such would be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. This, by its very nature, does not issue dogmatic declaration.
I think you are right BB. Being as it has been DECADES since I was a catholic, I don’t recall if anyone actually, verbally said it in those words, but the implication was clearly there. Since I am no longer a catholic, I certainly don’t buy it now, but I did way back then.
By the way, I wonder what would have happened, if there had been some sort of 2nd Amendment, during the inquisition? 😁👍😱
Wrong again.
Luther’s Roman contemporaries were ‘taking books out of the Bible’ just like Luther was, and you aren’t condemning them, are you? Most of them the same books even.
The only explanation is that Rome allowed such things until Trent.
Some pretty big talk...but that seems to be about all you ever bring to the threads.
Regarding caucus threads, you once broke into one claiming it was ok if it mentioned another religion, cause there was mention of Pharisees.
Really? That's all you have??
dude....sit down.
Your point is ignored for a reason.
It was not that Florence dogmatically defined the canon, but rather that there was a general consensus since the 4th century, and that such would be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. This, by its very nature, does not issue dogmatic declaration.
Now we're getting somewhere....an admission that Florence did not dogmatically define the canon for Roman Catholicism.
IF the canon was agreed upon by the 4th century, and I believe it was, it was not due to the "Ordinary Magisterium".
The early ekklesia recognized the writings which were inspired. This is clear from several passages in the NT.
"General consensus" still ignores the substantial and unreproved disagreements, and which is contrary to your revisionism that "There was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent because there was no need for one; the Deuterocanonical books were accepted by Catholics as part of the Bible."
How can you parrot this after all I have provided? As shown, even the Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
Thus while overall the larger canon may have been accepted, it was far from uniform acceptance, but the reason there was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent is because it was manifestly allowed for scholars to have varied opinions on the canonicity of certain books, as not being a threat, until this became part of the Reformers beliefs. Even then, I have not seen Luther's view on the canon being cited as a cause for the excommunication of him, or made a real issue until later.
In addition, if you want to impose later expressive teachings on the distinctions btwn different magisterial levels and required assent to them, then you must charge the likes of Athanasius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria; Cath. church "father;" c. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop of Jerusalem; doctor of the Cath church; d. circa. 385 AD), Council of Laodicea (363), bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403), Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390; bishop of Nazianzus), Hilary of Poitiers, (c. 310 – c. 367; bishop of Poitiers and a doctor of the Cath church), John of Damascus (patriarch of Constantinople, 9th century), Melito of Sardis (bishop of Sardis, 4th c.) and Origen (Cath. church "father" and thelogian; c. 184 – c. 253), Rufinus (344/345–411; historian, and theologian), Cardinals Seripando, Caietan, Ximenes, (16th c.) etc. with being in dissent, not rendering the required religious assent of intellect and will.
Yet who instead were not charged with such, since the matter of the canon was not yet officially settled so as to exclude this, as Trent did. And even within Trent, the issue of dogmatically settling the canon saw a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
But again, I point out the fact that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent in reaction to Catholic assertions of a settled canon which Luther heretically dissented from as some sort of maverick without scholarly reasons and support.
Moreover, if conformity to the canon of Rome is essential, then why not attack the EOs which add even more books than Rome did to the Palestinian canon?
However, as said, since Catholicism is manifestly wrong in its judgments about what the NT church believed, (based upon the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed) then why should its judgments on the canon of Scripture (which writings are of God) necessarily be believed?
They no more warrant required belief than all the judgments of who was of God by those who sat in the seat of Moses did., despite their own pedigree and being the magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation.
Whew!
Lots of data to get us started.
There is a difference between 'authority' and 'power'.
Today's question is: Who had the authority to reject the very words of Jesus when He stated:
…
Doesn't address why Catholics reject parts of it today; as well as essentially adding to it by their various non-biblical rituals.
Why does the NT book; Hebrews; have an entire chapter about it?
Nice set of books you got here.
Be a shame if something happened to them.
When will the ‘authority’ be defined in this thread as the building of the One True Church upon Peter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.