Diamond:
1) Yet, he wrote the commentary as bishop of Rome, and his commentary was used into the later Middle Ages as the standard commentary on Job for the entire Western Church, so I don’t think it can be regarded as merely his personal opinion. While he did teach that the book was useful for edification, along the lines of Jerome, the fact remains that his denial of ‘strict’ canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. It is inconceivable to me that Gregory the Great would have ever purposefully expressed a view that he knew was contrary to that which had been authoritatively established by the Church.
My response: Yes Pope Gregory wrote a biblical commentary that was among the standards for the Catholic Church, at least the Latin Church, for centuries. However, it is possible for a Pope, even one named Gregory the Great, to write a Biblical commentary as a theologian and biblical scholar and not write it as Bishop of Rome under infallibility. For example, Pope Benedict recently wrote and excellent book entitled “Jesus of Nazareth” as a personal theologian which he reflected on certain Gospel Passages about Christ. In no way was the Pope saying, and he says this up front, that his work is to be seen as the only way to interpret the Gospels that he was writing on. Catholic biblical scholars have freedom to interpret passages as long as they do not contradict Dogmas or Defined Doctrines, so there are boundaries which they can’t go beyond without being subject to Correction.
2) With regard to Nicea II, that Council also reaffirmed the canons of the Trullan Council called the Quinisext Council, and in doing so affirmed the canons of Athanasius, Amphilocius and Basil the Great on the canon, all of whom rejected the majority of the Deuterocanonical books as being canonical. See Canon 1:
“... and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers...’ which is a direct reference to the Quinisext/Trullan Council. Nicea II considered the decrees of the Council of Trullo to have promulgated decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
My response:
Canon 1 from II Nicea (787 AD, cited from newadvent.org) states in part…
“Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that has found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. And now let your conversation be without covetousness, cries out Paul the divine Apostle, who was caught up into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words.
Ancient Epitome: We gladly embrace the Divine Canons, viz.: those of the Holy Apostles, of the Six Ecumenical Synods, as also of the local synods and of our Holy Fathers, as inspired by one and the same Holy Spirit. Whom they anathematize we also anathematize; whom they depose, we depose; whom they cut off, we cut off; and whom they subject to penalties, we also so subject.”
Canon, as it is being used in II Nicea 787 does not mean or refer to the “Biblical Canon”. If you read carefully, what this and other Canons are talking about is what is to be believed from the Six Ecumenical Councils, of which Trullan was not, and then the Local synods and canons from them which directed how the various Churches were to implement the Decrees from the Ecumenical Councils. Remember, II Nicea was called to deal with Iconoclasm which was seen as a heresy distorting the Incarnation. So read in particular the statement “or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils.
So while St. Athanasius and St. Basil the Great may have not favored all the Deuterocanoncials, they were in the minority in the Eastern Church and as noted, there view did not prevail in the Western Church. In fact, as I noted before, the Eastern Orthodox OT canon is actually larger than the Catholic OT canon by sometimes 3 books [3 and 4 Macabees and 3 Esdras, using St. Jerome’s Vulgate terminology or what you refer to as 1 Esdras], which brings me to your final concern.
3) Don’t forget ‘Greek Esdras (Septuagint Esdras I) which was accepted for the first five centuries of the Church, and then excluded at Trent. It seems to me, though, that either the Councils were contradicting themselves, or, and you allude to it, there were two senses of the term ‘canonical’, and that the deuterocanonical books were not to be regarded as canonical in the strict sense, but were to be regarded as useful for edification and reading in the Churches.
My response:
With respect to the book “1 Esdras”, I think there is some different terminology being used. Please see link below
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm
The Catholic Church in the West never accepted what you are calling Esdras 1 as St. Jerome took the Septuagint Esdras 1 and divided it into 4 distinct Books, 1 and 2 Esdras in Jerome’s Vulgate terminology, are called Ezra and Nehemiah in today’s English Bibles. So, what Protestants today call 1 and 2 Esdras, is what St. Jerome in the Vulgate referred to as 3 and 4 Esdras and those books were never part of the OT canon in the Latin-Western Catholic Church as evidenced by the OT canon lists of Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD and Carthage again in 419 AD.
On the other had, 3 Esdras using Vulgate Terminology/ 1 Esdras using Protestant Terminology and the LXX terminology which included Ezra, Nehemiah and what Jerome referred to as 3 Esdras in one book, was included in the OT canon list of Origen in the early 3rd century, reflecting the Alexandrian Tradition. Given its placement in the LXX, and despite St. Athanasiaus and St. Basils views, what you are calling 1 Esdras is still part of the Greek Orthodox OT canon, or most of the Orthodox Churches, along with 3 and 4 Maccabees and in some cases, Psalm 151 as well.
You are proving my point. Can you imagine Pope Benedict writing a commentary on Jesus of Nazareth that he knew was contrary to established church teaching on the subject? Of course not. In the same way Gregory the Great would have never purposefully expressed a view that he knew was contrary to that which had been authoritatively established by the Church, i.e. contradict already well established Church teaching on what constituted the Canon.
...what St. Jerome in the Vulgate referred to as 3 and 4 Esdras and those books were never part of the OT canon in the Latin-Western Catholic Church as evidenced by the OT canon lists of Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD and Carthage again in 419 AD.
Not so. Notwithstanding the confusing terms, what Hippo and Carthage declared canonical (1 Esdras) Trent declared uncanonical because Hippo and Carhage were referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. It is the Septuigant 1 Esdras that became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate. The bottom line is that the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras was different from the one decreed by Trent because the North African Church followed the Septuagint.
Cordially,