The Supremacy of Scripture

When a teacher or preacher speaks of the Supremacy of Scripture he is almost always referring to a doctrine that understands Scripture as the supreme source for truth, and in fact the exclusive source for spiritual truth. In the language of the Reformation it is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the basis for our beliefs is not tradition or experience or ecclesiastical dictate, it is the written Scriptures alone. And it is true that this doctrine has been eroding and that many religious organizations either completely deny it or dilute its essence.

Luther desired nothing but proof from Scripture when it came to doctrinal truth, and forms of that battle have continued into today. There are many books and messages that deal with the Supremacy of Scripture and the reasons for such a foundational doctrine. And this doctrine has provided a forum for what some call the "truth war" which indicates a battle between those who espouse the supremacy of Scripture and those who in one way or another do not. Some project their opinion with academic reasoning within Scripture while retaining some civility, while others speak and write with acrimony and self righteousness.

I am one who espouses the Supremacy of Scripture, for in the end the opinions of men are just that. But I continue to have a problem with some of those who are the leading and most outspoken proponents of that doctrine. Luther himself espoused the supremacy of Scripture at the possible expense of his own life, however after establishing the doctrinal foundation of Sola Scriptura he seemed to dismiss the core of that doctrine when it came to personal obedience. His reckless language, combined with his indulgence of alcohol, and his overt hatred for the Jews was in stark contrast to his doctrinal espousing of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy. Without dismissing Luther’s importance in core doctrinal realignment, I suggest he did not strive to live up to the personal mandates of Scripture which are every bit an indispensible part of Scriptural supremacy.

What Luther’s example has shown us is that it is entirely possible to be an outspoken proponent of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while denying it wholesale in practice and tone. And such is the case in many quarters of today’s evangelical community. To what benefit is it to aggressively contend for the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while overtly denying it in the methodology you use to defend it? That scenario becomes a paradox in orthodoxy which dismantles the very doctrine you are supposedly defending. The supremacy doctrine is never limited to the overarching eternal truths concerning the Godhead, it must include the admonitions and commands that are consistent with the personal manifestations of the Incarnate narrative, as well as the dictates of the epistles.

It is indeed counterproductive to argue doctrine in the abstract without the personal revelations, or at least the obvious and genuine pursuit, of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture which are designed to restrict the carnal “end justifies the means” template of defending the truth. In the end, defending the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy by abrogating the preponderance of Scripture as it applies to love, grace, and personal humility is neither Christian nor Scriptural. It is an overt revelation of disobedience and rejection of the very doctrine you portend to defend. Christ Himself was the antithesis of masculine domination and powerful usurpation, which at its core is why so many were drawn to Him while others rejected Him.

So many today stand on the mountaintop of hubristic judgment of almost everyone who are at varying degrees of doctrinal variance, but are blind to their own Scriptural disobedience. The world knows nothing of our doctrinal squabbles, serious or secondary, but they can see clearly the tone and attitudes that are in direct conflict with the Christ we preach. The cross is the core of our redemption, but it also carries with it the essence of how we are to interact with the world and each other. These “Attila the Hun” expressions of doctrinal dialogues do despite to the Spirit of Christ, and may in fact win the debate but lose the Spirit.

What is our calling? Are we to win the “truth war” or are we to live and project Jesus Christ? And those who claim they are in fact one in the same are seriously misguided. Winning the “truth war” is indeed more about living Christ than it ever was about a round table discussion about doctrinal issues on YouTube that draw “amen’s” from the doctrinal Bourgeoisie and elevate the wisdom of men resulting in the applause of other men. The sounds of “did you see so and so on Larry King, didn’t he really give it to them” are only meant to create a greater self righteousness within those who have chosen sides at the expense of deep compassion for those who are blind and deep gratitude for those of us who have been enlightened by His grace.

We have been sold a doctrinal bill of goods that has camouflaged the truth inside a methodology that is in direct violation of the same Scriptural mandates. Would it be Scriptural to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by murder? Of course not, you say. Then how can it be Scriptural to defend Scripture by self righteousness, demeaning personal attacks, and hubristic dismissiveness? We cannot exalt the supremacy of Scripture if we ignore those Scriptures that apply directly to us.

And here lies the challenge. Are we humble enough to defend cardinal doctrines of the faith in such a way that leaves the outcome to God Himself, or are we to speak in such a way that leverages the battle upon the fulcrum of our own words and the core viciousness of our attacks? God looks after His own Word and His instructions to us are never in contrast to that same Word. Speak the truth in love, says the Spirit, not speak the truth in visceral hatred and that is in itself love. The constant stream of unchristian language directed at the same people over and over again reveals an unwillingness to trust God concerning His own Word and its defense. Is there a God, and has He spoken, and is He able to bring about His purposes in spite of those who have strayed doctrinally, or is He in dire need of our constant attacks and redundant reminders of the same Scriptural shortcomings of others? And is our Biblical teaching so fleeting, so shallow, and so temporary that without the continuing stream of identifying the same false teachers people will stray immediately?

The supremacy of Scripture is not some “pin the tail on the donkey” doctrine that we stick on others, no, it is also high time that we examine our own adherence to the personal aspects of that same doctrine. Doctrinal truth must be lived as well as preached.

Correction: “it makes a warranted distinction between the supremacy and material (not formal) sufficiency of Scripture” should be changed to “formal and material sufficiency” of Scripture, both of which Reformationists held to, with material sufficiency providing for gifts and teachers, who teach doctrine and make judgments that are truly Scripturally substantiated, versus what Rome has come to include in its idea of moral sufficiency, that of doctrine and practices which are dependent on the power of Rome to make unwarranted extraBiblical traditions equal to Scripture. The statement you object to makes this historic distinction, regardless of RC claims to be consistent with Scripture.

The definition of the theological terms formal and material sufficiency can vary somewhat in interpretation, nor have they been infallibly defined by Rome.

Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis asserts that “Formal sufficiency requires that doctrine be formulated only from explicit statements in Scripture,” yet the Westminster Confession states that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture [materially provided] or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture [formally sufficient];

I agree that that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, but not that only the Bible is needed for full growth in grace. While a soul can now be saved by simply reading the same recorded salvation messages by which souls were saved in Acts (Semi-Formal Sufficiency or SFS) as the Spirit of Truth convicts and illuminates them, yet, as i have basically affirmed before, the church was and is commissioned and needed to both instrumentally share that truth and enable growing grace. (Rm. 10:14; 1Cor. 12)

The key contention remains to be the basis for ecclesiastical authenticity; whether historical lineage, however problematic, of an autocratic authority which validates itself by essentially printing its own money, or that which must relying on providing substantiation of Biblically demonstrable faith, relying most supremely upon the only affirmed Divinely written and tangible authority.

That is incorrect. Whatever God speaks has authority, whether man affirm it as God’s word or not. Those who effectually recognize and believes it as such, like Abraham, receive the positive promises; those who reject it evidence that they love darkness over light, and will realize the negative consequences of so doing.

Abraham believed God, and righteousness was imputed to him (Gn. 15:6) and of such virile faith a nation was born. Thru that nation more authoritative revelation was given - authoritative because it came from God - and was written.

And as it was from God its quality and power resulted in it being recognized as such, often due in part to the overt supernatural Divine attestation that accompanied it, as with Moses, as well its enduring power among them that believed it (Ps. 19; 119), and by its confirmation by those whom God manifestly raised up and who referenced it, such as the prophets. And through such God typically added more revelation (search “the word of the Lord”).

That books were recognized as Scripture even in Christ’s time is internally manifest, (Lk. 24:44; Jn. 5:39) even if later evidence shows the Hebrew canon was not formally settled among all Jews, but from the beginning the recognition of what was was God’s word and Scripture (i am aware the former could exist apart from the latter, though not in contradiction to it) was not essentially due to the formal decree of committees, however helpful, but by its manifest power that attended its proclamation, and was realized by obedience to it. Man may ratify what is on a best-sellers list, but its quality is what is responsible for a classic.

While a book may endure for a time, and compulsory reading or inclusion may keep it in wide circulation (which i think relates to the apocrypha), the true test of its quality is when it continues to be in demand over time, even when censored, as well as by its manifest truthfulness and effect on its readers, and thus it has been with the Bible more than any other book in its class. And just as no other personage in history besides Jesus has had so many songs written in praise of him by a free people, so i think the devotion given to the Bible is unique in degree and scope, as it uniquely manifest the power to quicken one to heart-changing regeneration - even in a desert - and to feed the hungry souls, and manifest the fruits of righteousness.

>I have no reason to think you are.

I was not inferring i was a prophet, though i think Luther, despite his faults, was a type of one, and who actually helped Rome to partially reform itself.

But the question is, by what criteria do you ascertain that one is a messenger of God?

The Bereans examined the preaching of the very apostles by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) and found them true, and it was by the Scriptures that Jesus justified His claim and doctrines and answered questions, (Mt. 22, etc.) and that Apollos (Acts 18:28) and the apostles showed that Jesus was the Christ, and verified the message of the gospel, and convicted men of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment, (Acts 2:14ff; 7; 13:16ff), and upon which new revelation and doctrines were established, (Romans, Hebrews) and discipline, (Acts 15) and Scripture-based customs upheld. (1Cor. 11)

This, and overt supernatural Divine attestation,(Acts 4:33; 5:12; Rm. 15:19 and their sacrificial love and holiness, (2Cor. 6:1-10) were their credentials as servants of Christ, and as apostles who had personally seen the resurrected Christ and were taught by Him. (1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1)

While God certainly founded both a nation and a church - both upon faith - and entrusted the laws, covenants, and promises of God to it, it is not by formal organic historical lineage that constitutes either a true child of Abraham or a Christian, (Rm. 2:28,29) by faith which is demonstrably substantiated by that tangible class of revelation which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and formally and materially sufficient.

In contrast is an authority whose validity is really based upon its own declaration that it is conditionally infallible, and by such its declaration of infallibility is rendered infallible, and thus its interpretation of Scripture upon which it attempts to affirm its infallibly defined infallibility, with its other basis being a supposedly unbroken lineage of Popes, which includes men who would be disqualified from even church fellowship. (1Cor. 5:11)

I understand what you believe, but you are simply making assertions. Popes make claim what they will, and you may accept what they decree, but even Jews and its Majisterium, which again, unlike the Pope, the Bible explicitly affirms were given the stewardship of the Hebrew Scriptures, were not necessarily true Jews due to that fact, let alone infallible guides, and were reproved to adding to that which was written. (Mt. 15:1-9) And thus, regardless of the inescapable problems with false seekers, all such men are to be examined by that which is affirmed to be infallible, as the noble Bereans exampled, and which use of authority the Lord and His apostles validated.

Nor does discerning what is inspired of God, or ratifying what others have affirmed, confer authority, else we should all be Jews, and even demons recognize who the true God is. God operates by demonstrating who and what is His, and and those who follow Him are evidenced to be doing so by their conformity to that which was already established, and according to the principle of Jn. 8:31,32, it is these who recognize the totality of what is Truth. And functionally these operate within the one true universal church, built upon the essential faith which Peter confessed, manifest in visible organic bodies.

In contrast are those who rest upon pedigree, (Jn. 8:33 and Mt. 3:9) and those who presume to a position whereby they alone are the supreme authority, and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Such shall be abased in the end.

I myself have made it clear the Scriptures did not fall from Heaven, but also that their inspiration is not established simply by man’s decree, including an “authoritative” one that came in 1546 by a 9 vote margin, but by the Divine attestation that accompanies the reception of the Scriptures in faith, (in regeneration) and the changes realized from believing it, and the manner of testimony of those who attest to such being Scripture.

The idea that it is “only by accepting the authority of men that we know what is Scripture”, is contrary to its means of manifesting that it is true, seen in the abundant praise of it within Scripture, and the testimony of its power. It was not by ratifying a collection that the body of of Scripture was essentially established, but by the unique and enduring quality of them which made enabled the ratification of what had become historically evident. The Scriptures have life, and beget the same, without which man’s decrees would have no little lasting effect, and widespread literacy of such would need to be compelled.

If left to Rome, the Bible would be a rather obscure book, as until long after the Reformation, Bible literacy for the masses was not a priority, and overall there has been relative little manifest hunger for personal study of it in her areas due to the deadness of her gospel and preaching.

As for “we ONLY understand it if others tell us what the words mean”, that is a mark of the natural man, not the regenerate, (1Cor. 2:14,15) and infers that even the teachers of the word are given little or no personal illumination of the meaning of Scriptures. I would recommend you read some of Matthew Henry’s complete commentary for an example of the degree of practical application that can be gleaned from the Scriptures.

By studying books Daniel understood the time of the captivity prophesied by Jeremiah, (Dan 9:2) Israel was told “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read” (Isa. 34:16) for prophetic proof, Jesus told the Jews “Search the scriptures” for proof of His Messiahship, and again, the noble but common Bereans examined the apostolic preaching by the Scriptures. 1Jn. 2:27 also infers that essential truths were revealed to true believers, thus guarding them against seducers who supposed they alone had insight into the Scriptures.

Of course, those who are given the gift of teaching may be given more light, and as God has made the members of the body interdependent, so believers need each other to properly grow in the grace and knowledge of God, and likeness of Christ. (1Cor. 12; Eph. 4)

However, as much as Rome would like to eliminate the inescapable problem of appealing to private judgment, which the apostles did, (2Cor. 4:2; Acts 17:2; 28:23) she cannot, as even assenting unto Rome as the only infallible interpreter of Scripture obliges private judgment.

Moreover, even Rome’s (few) infallibly defined teaching requires interpretation. Define “unanimous consent of the Fathers, which is a basis for certain doctrines of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) which lacks such consent, and so apologists render a more liberal interpretation, contrary to some R.C. authorities. (http://www.christiantruth.com/livingtradition.html) Even what constitutes infallibly defined teaching is not so defined as to prevent some controversy as to what this all includes.

In addition, 2Pt. 1:20, which is often invoked by R.C. apologists as disallowing the validity of practicing Acts 17:11, is an example of “wresting” a text, warned of in 2Pt. 3:16, as the verse is not speaking of interpreting Scripture, but of the manner by which Scripture was written. And thus the prophecy of the scripture is in contras with “cunningly devised fables”, of which type Rome has sometimes used, including the Donation of Constantine, the Liber Pontificalis, parts of the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, and the most notorious Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, the principles of which the renowned R.C. historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger said “eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.” (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).

The papacy is the ecclesiastical version of “give us a king” (1Sam. 8:6) but in total, the implicit trust Rome requires of her, and which multitudes willingly give her, is neither warranted by Scripture or history, and will be eternally tragic for those who so rely on her.

You continually use the term "decree."

As far as the Bible is concerned, the canon was indeed never decreed by anyone, including the Council of Trent, but was determined by a consensus of the churches during the first three centuries. The Synod of Carthage pronounced , so far as I know, the first official list. But it is uncertain how many collections of New Testament books existed, and how many copies of individual works were available. Books were much more plentiful in the Roman world than most people think, and not as expensive as they would be in medieval times. But a "Bible" is actually a library and this it would be available only to a pious layman who was wealthy/ a rather large congregation. From the start, the ordinary Christian would be a hearer of the Word, not a reader, and the Lector would be an officer of the Church, and a kind of librarian. The Jewish Scripture were, undoubtedly, available from the beginning, and the Christian Scriptures were only gradually made part of the worship service. We have no idea how quickly they were brought into general circulation, although I am of the school that holds that this would be sooner rather than later. The Canon was developed from the books that " everyone" used in the liturgy, but when that happened is hard to know. It is "the work of the Spirit," but does not that also mean in accordance with the Tradition--as handed down from generation to generation? And degrees of the Church are affirmations of what has always been believed, not inventions. The canon has spelled out at Trent was a reaction to the efforts by Luther and other "reformers" to reform the Canon. and publish it so as to support their opinions.

One is a logical fallacy; the other is a justified query. It is arrogance to equate the Lord, who is expressly and manifestly declared to be perfect, - righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works - (Dt. 32:4; Job. 34:10; Psa. 147:15) with an institution which declares itself infallible, based upon its own “infallible” interpretation, and by such has indeed sanctioned things which are contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.

While many early fathers upheld the supremacy of Scripture, in time tradition began to be used to include extraBiblcal beliefs and practices.

As stated before, one cannot justified praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, when that is all the Scriptures testify to, by command, exhortation and example, and which stood in in contrast to the pagans, nor can one justify a church law requiring that all the priests have the gift of celibacy (except Eastern converts). Of course, Bishops and Elders constituted one pastoral office, (Titus 1:5-7) and they were not ordained as a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but in this respect were part of the general priesthood of all believers, as Peter declares.

In arguing that such things are not contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, rather than relying on the only tangible source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, unspoken tradition is made equal with Scripture, while Rome’s magisterium effectively reigns supreme over both, if it does say so itself. Only by such an unprovable and extraBiblical basis can the Rome can claim it is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.

In addition, rather than certain doctrines being rooted in historical continuity, the “unanimous consent of the fathers was a severe stretch for such.

Dominican priest, Patrologist and author Boniface Ramsey, confesses this difficulty:

“we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.” (Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers: London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6)

This led to invoking an expansive concept of “the development of doctrine”, in which a germ of error from the past, such as some vague idea of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment for believers after this life allows them to justify the unBiblical doctrine of purgatory.

One is a logical fallacy; the other is a justified query.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Scripture tells us God's church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord are true. Is it logical to you that God's church, being the bulwark of truth, would sanction an activity or teaching that is contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, which are true?

It is arrogance to equate the Lord, who is expressly and manifestly declared to be perfect, - righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works - (Dt. 32:4; Job. 34:10; Psa. 147:15) with an institution which declares itself infallible, based upon its own “infallible” interpretation, and by such has indeed sanctioned things which are contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.

It is arrogance to think God's word is wrong in teaching that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

As stated before, one cannot justified praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, when that is all the Scriptures testify to, by command, exhortation and example

That's assuming that the members of His Church are bound to the man-made tradition of Sola Scripture as applied to a truncated version of Scripture.

nor can one justify a church law requiring that all the priests have the gift of celibacy (except Eastern converts).

It's not a doctrine of the Church, it is a voluntary discipline. You are also misled on the "Eastern converts" restriction. Exceptions can also be made for those converting from Western religions, e.g. Anglicanism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, as long as they are already married.

Of course, Bishops and Elders constituted one pastoral office, (Titus 1:5-7) and they were not ordained as a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but in this respect were part of the general priesthood of all believers, as Peter declares.

That's your interpretation.

rather than relying on the only tangible source which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, unspoken tradition is made equal with Scripture

The Church was and is inspired by God. Scripture is a tradition from that Church.

while Rome’s magisterium effectively reigns supreme over both, if it does say so itself.

It's not Rome's magisterium, but the Church's.

Only by such an unprovable and extraBiblical basis can the Rome can claim it is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord.

The Church is not contradicting the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord. Your may see the basis as extraBiblical but the vast majority of Christianity doesn't. Besides, extraBiblical is a constraint only for those abiding by the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.

Dominican priest, Patrologist and author Boniface Ramsey, confesses this difficulty:

There's no difficulty. Do you hold Boniface Ramsey as infallible?

The doctrine of Purgatory did not develop from some germ of error in the past. Even though you interpret it as unBiblical, we do not. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is what's unBiblical.

>The canon has spelled out at Trent was a reaction to the efforts by Luther and other “reformers” to reform the Canon. and publish it so as to support their opinions.<

It was not until Trent that the present canon of Rome was “infallibly defined”, and rather than Luther and other “reformers” reforming the Canon, the Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture, as the apocrypha was not accepted by the Jews nor was it included in such early lists as that of Melito (AD 170, and minus Esther) and the Muratorian Canon. Notable authorities had rejected the deuterocanonical books, from Athanasius, (ca. 367) to Jerome ((ca. 394; though he stated the books can be used “ecclesiastically” and sometime quoted from some) to Josephus and others.

While the canons of Hippo and Carthage sanctioned these extra books, and had been given ecumenical authority, their approval is evidenced as being not specific but general, as they also sanctioned different canons. (http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html)

Different canons were sanctioned by the Council in Trullo (Quinisext Council) in 692 and the seventh Ecumenical Council (787), and the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament, and which soon received papal sanction.

Jerome’s requirement for canonicity was that a book must have universal acceptance, and the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and enable edification and the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”.

Disagreement existed within Roman Catholicism even in Luther’s time, as even Roman Catholic Cardinal and theologian Cajetan, who, paradoxically, drafted a declaration of dogma on the subject of indulgences for Pope Leo X in order to help condemn Luther as a heretic, (as there was no an official teaching on indulgences, or official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory when Luther posted the 95 Theses), stated,

Cardinal Cajetan stating,

“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.” 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.)

Disputed.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia informs,

‘Laetentur caeli is an infallible document, the only one of the Council.’ referring to the decree of union between the Greeks and Latins, Laetentur caeli. (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume V, Florence, p. 9730

More expansively,

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books...According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).

French Dominican cardinal and theologian Yves Congaran states

“an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 38).

Your New Advent source, states,

“The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity,”

while

“The Tridentine [Trent] decrees from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

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.