Pope Gregory said Maccabees is not canonical. Saint Jerome said they are not canonical, and said that the CHURCH did not use them for the confirmation of the faith. No mention of the jews. Your quote of Jerome applied to an abuse in a statement of his preface in Daniel. My quotes are two separate ones. That Athanasius did not share the Catholic canon, and was more protestant than Catholic, was the point.
Fact is, there was never any question of Maccabees, insomuch that it itself tells us it is not an inspired work. Why not take it at its word? Same for Wisdom, which contradicts the scripture no one doubts. Josephus said that only 22 books made up the canon, and all the others are not due to the failure of the succession of prophets. Those who study it for themselves are of a greater value than a thousand dead Roman assertions.
You can repeat yourself all you want about St. Jerome and Pope St. Gregory. Doesn’t make it true.
As for Athanasius being Protestant: LOL!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OK, his canon was wrong, but it wasn’t the Protestant canon, either. Have you ever read Athanasius?
He’s perhaps most noted for promulgating the Council of Nicea, promoting monasticism, founding a rule of bishops, etc. The notion that he might be a Protestant just means you’ve never read a single thing he’s ever written, or anything about him, or his culture.
Oh, and your little tidbit about the Book of Daniel? The problem is that Jerome specifically mentions the portions of the Book of Daniel that are rejected by Protestants. Here’s the full quote:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us
Also:
Also, he writes: “Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’” Not according to you; that’s Sirach he’s not only calling scripture, but using to base a doctrinal assertion on.
He also calls Baruch a prophet: “I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] And those of Baruch ,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] And many other proclamations made by the trumpet of such prophets.”
In fact, dozens of times, Jerome cites as scripture — and bases theological arguments on — the deuterocanonical books. So why refer solely to the portions of Daniel than Luther left on the cutting room floor? Because those were specifically the ones he was charged with considering non-canonical.
None of this however, justifies Luther’s rejection of the other books I’ve mentioned, but serves only as a distraction from the larger point.
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work, translating according to sense rather than verbatim.So when Protestants cite his preface to Wisdom as if he regards it as nonscriptural, how can they ignore that he just defended, in the very same work, Judith as scriptural?
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."Simple: he's already explained that "among the canonical Scriptures" refers to the books that the JEWS consider canonical. When he says, "not to give authority to doctrines of the Church," he's referring to arguing with Jews: No point telling the Jews, "See? Your scriptures affirm Christianity" when the Jews don't recognize such scripture!
Now, it's true that, out of context of the introduction to Judith, you could read what he says as suggesting that the Church considers them non-scriptural. That's why Jerome had to address accusations made against him that he considered them non-scriptural. But consider the bitterness with which he denies the accusation ("fools and slanderers") as your hint of how firmly the Church rejected any dissent.