[Aquinasfan]

Most writing seems to reverse your view regarding the motivations involved in the decision on “apocrypha” or “scripture” — focusing on the desire of the Catholic church to enlist the aid of the Maccabees’ passages supporting the idea of indulgences, rather than a break with tradition by Luther.

That's a frequent claim, but the fact is that the canon adopted by Trent was the same canon in constant use by the Catholic Church for 1100 years.

Since Luther was a Catholic priest, the question remains, By what authority did Luther change the canon of Scripture?

[Greg F]

t's a frequent claim, but the fact is that the canon adopted by Trent was the same canon in constant use by the Catholic Church for 1100 years.

I think if you look at the histories the view of Jerome that the books were apocrypha predominated, certainly at periods of time across a millenia,even after the councils of Hippo, etc., . For example, Gregory the Great viewed the Maccabees as not being part of the Canon. Basically, I think you overstate your case! I say that where there is dispute, there is not scripture. It may be wonderfully edifying, but is not the word of God.

[Quix]

That's a frequent claim,

I consider it a historical fact.

but the fact is that the canon adopted by Trent was the same canon in constant use by the Catholic Church for 1100 years.

ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL IN 100% OF ALL RESPECTS? Do you have documentation for that? LOL.

I don't know that it matters . . . RC's posit a seamless bureaucracy from Peter on. That's simply historically false.

[Petronski]

Excellent points.