Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; HarleyD

“So it cannot be true that “the early Christian fathers declared them inspiration but not on the same level as scripture”.”

The question was if they should be acceptable for determining doctrine. If not, then they fall short of what the Apostle Paul called scripture. And even the Council of Trent refused to decide if the Apocrypha met that standard:

From Jedin:

“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as “canonical and authentic”, belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as “canonical and ecclesiastical books”, belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet “canonical” from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.

The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.” History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57

Found here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html

So you see, the Roman Catholic Church has never authoritatively said the Apocrypha is acceptable for determining doctrine.


148 posted on 10/04/2014 4:51:05 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers; HarleyD

The point remains that the Church as a whole did not relegate the Deuterocanon to any special status, no matter what individual opinions existed on the matter when the Canon was still in the process of formation, that is till 5 Century. The Council of Carthage lists all the books of the Catholic Old Testament without distinction. The Deuterocanonical books were used in liturgy since then. That is all that matters.

Trent merely confirmed infallibly the doctrines that were challenged by the Reformers. It did not insert anything into the canon. That is generally how the Church operates: it speaks infallibly not to establish a dogma but to confirm or disallow a doctrine when and if it is challenged.


162 posted on 10/04/2014 5:09:28 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson