“that they were always kept separate from the NT and OT by the Catholics themselves, mainly because they were written after God had caused the spirit of prophecy to depart from Israel, therefore their inspired nature is rightfully suspect.”
Which is why the definitive Latin version of scripture excluded them. Oh wait. No, it didn’t.
The Vulgate included them. As of 400 AD.
Yes, I was mistaken, sorry about that. See my other response above, however. Included or not, they were still disputed as to whether they carried the full wait of the universally accepted Hebrew scriptures, from the early days of the church. The notion that something was different about these books didn’t start with Luther, and therefore attributing some peculiarly Protestant motive for their exclusion isn’t accurate.
“Which is why the definitive Latin version of scripture excluded them. Oh wait. No, it didn’t.
The Vulgate included them. As of 400 AD.”
Jerome translated the vulgate, and says the Apocrypha is not canon.
“Whatsoever is without these, is to be placed among the Apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly called the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.” — Preface to the Book of Kings, vol. 3, book 24.
Cardinal Cajeten expressing Jerome’s position on the matter:
“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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.”
-Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)
There are also substantial reasons why the Apocrypha uncanonize themselves.
Tobit, for example, has angels teaching believers how to do magic, as well as showing “Angels of the Lord” telling lies about their identity.
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
It also teaches that alms giving, not the blood of the lamb, cleanses sin.
Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
Judith has wrong historical information and, therefore, cannot be scripture:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
He’s King of the Babylonians, just so you know.
Baruch has similar historical problems:
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
It was for 70 years, not 7 generations, just so you know.
Maccabees uncanonizes itself, insomuch it tells us directly that it was not written by anyone inspired.
For that cause the Jews rejected the apocrypha, since there were no Prophets in those days who could have composed any of these books:
“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” ... “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
For the same cause, Origen, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and “Pope” Gregory the first, rejected most, if not all, of these books as canon.
For example, Gregory on Maccabees:
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
And Athanasius:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and in cluded in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zacha- riah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.” — Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures. (Paris, 1627.)
A repost:
“Yes, they could.”
What, is Roman exegesis summed up in the ability to say “I disagree!”?
“Sez who? You?”
Says Jerome, whose argument I took, and the plain teachings of the scripture that do not hold that a man can supplant God in the forgiveness of sins.
Besides, when your Priests are not too busy molesting little boys, they have need of forgiveness themselves. Such is the extreme foolishness of depending on men for forgiveness instead of God.
“Oh, you mean James, Bishop of Jerusalem, presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem. I see.”
From the Catechism:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404
884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”405 But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”406
Thus, if Rome is correct, then James, who was presiding over the council, contradicted Peter’s judgment and declared his OWN sentence, must, in fact, be the Pope.
“This is an argument from silence”
Indeed, if the early Christians did not see fit to mention that there is a POPE somewhere in whom UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY was owed, then it is illogical to claim that any existed.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403
If Ignatius DOES say that the head of Polycarp is GOD, and not Peter who is here called the HEAD OF THE CHURCH, I can see it as nothing less than a direct contradiction of Roman theology.
From the Catechism: “The episcopal college and its HEAD, the Pope”.
“Tertullian argues for Apostolic succession through the bishop of Rome from St. Peter to Clement.”
Tertullian also argues against the Eucharist being the literal body of Christ:
“Wherefore, because they thought his saying hard and intolerable, as if he had really decreed that his flesh was to be eaten by them, in order that he might place salvation in the spirit, he first said, It is the spirit which quickeneth, and then added, the flesh profiteth nothing, that is to say, to quickening. And what he meant by the spirit, follows, the words which I have spoken are spirit and life. As above, he who hears my words and believes in him, who sent me, has eternal life, and .shall not come into judgment, but shall pass from death to life. Therefore, appointing the word to be life-giving, because the word is spirit and life, he called the same his flesh, because the word was made flesh, and therefore was to be desired as the origin of life, to be devoured by hearing, to be chewed in the mind, and to be digested by faith.” — Upon the Resurrection of the Body
“The bread which he had taken and distributed to his disciples he made his body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.”
Tertullian holds the chairs of the Apostles as all being equal, and lists Rome as merely another “place” in a long list of places where the seats of the Apostles presides:
“But come now, thou who art impatient to exercise thy curiosity more profitably in the work of thy salvation ; survey the apostolical churches in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside over their stations, in which their own letters are recited, uttering the voice and representing the presence of each of them. Is Achaia nearest to thee, thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast •the Philippians and the Thessalonians. If thou canst go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus, but if thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome, whence to us also authority is near at hand,” (On the Prescriptions against Heretics)
Confession and penance in the church is Public, not secret as it is in the Roman church:
“For the most part they were wont to nourish their prayers by fastings, to groan, to cry, to lament day and night to the Lord their God, to prostrate themselves before the priests, to embrace the knees of the saints, to impose embassies of deprecation upon all the brethren. Confession comprehends all these things. Many however presume to avoid this work, as being a publishing of their condition to put it off from day to day, thinking more of their shame than their salvation.... But the church is Christ. When therefore you clasp the knees of the brethren, you touch Christ, and you supplicate Christ. And in the same manner when they weep over you, Christ suffers and Christ intercedes with the Father.... Whether is it better to be condemned in secret, than to be openly absolved?” (Concerning Penance)
According to Tertulian, the rule of Faith is scripture, not in the decision of the Magesterium:
“Let the school of Hermogenes show that it is written, if it is not written, let him fear the curse directed against those, who add or di minish.” — Against Hermogenes,
According to Tertullian, idolatry is service to ANY kind of image:
“Every form or little form must be called an idol. Wherefore idolatry is the service and attendance of every kind of idol.... God forbids as well the making as the worshipping of an idol. In order to root out that which is the substance of idolatry, the divine law proclaims, Thou shalt not make an idol ; and by adding, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven or upon the earth or in the sea, prohibits the act to the whole world.”(On Idolatry)
So, are you sure Tertullian isn’t a better friend to me than he is to you?