Replies

Pope Gregory the Great, did not believe Maccabees was scripure

I read up on this, and the problem is an equivocal use of the term, "canonical." The Church did, and does, consider the "deuterocanonical books" of the Bible as the "second canon," just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.

Pope Gregory the Great In his commentary on Job, Book 19, chapter 34, he says that it is not irregular to quote for the church’s edification the books of the Apocrypha, as long as it is understood that they are not canonical.

He then immediately retells the story from 1 Macc. 6:42-47 concerning the death of Eleazar Savaran, who killed an elephant, though being killed in the process.

Gregory’s exact words are these: “De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen ad aedificationem ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus” (emphasis added).

The translation already linked renders it: “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” What immediately follows is from Maccabees.

The Church did, and does, consider the "deuterocanonical books" of the Bible as the "second canon," just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.

God breathed is God breathed. The Epistles are just as divinely inspired as any other book of Scripture.

If men are condemned in James for being respecters of persons, what is to be said for sitting in judgment of Scripture and being a respecter of Scripture and therefore God?

just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.

Just because your church, according to you, "esteems" some Scripture less than others doesn't mean it is a truthful or wise position to take. Jesus sure seemed to esteem the Old Testament Scriptures pretty highly as he often quoted passages verbatim and he established HIS authority from them. They had and have an intrinsic authority because ALL Scripture is God-breathed - HOLY SPIRIT revealed all the way from Genesis to Revelation. The fact that the Bible contains the very word of God qualifies it ALL as fully authoritative to the believer regardless of what any religion thinks about it.

The Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphal books have NEVER been considered as Divinely-revealed, God-breathed sacred Scripture regardless of whose canon they appeared in. That IS the difference.

Catholics like to accuse Luther of removing books he didn't think agreed with his theology - even though it is a solid FACT that he did not take out those books in his German translation - but do not seem to see the hypocrisy in the Council of Trent ADDING those books to the canon and esteeming them as inspired Scripture along side all the other books of the Bible because one of them alluded to a possibility of another place between earth and heaven/hell. Of the meager number of verses that they use to somehow prove a place called "Purgatory", they NEEDED one obscure sentance in a book - which never really comes close to the doctrine of Purgatory - to bolster their case against the Reformation. Didn't work then, STILL won't work now.