I’m currently studying that whole deal and am finding some rather compelling reason they were not part of cannon. It seems there are many problems fitting them with other scripture.
“Well, smvoice would be correct in that according to the RCC.”
No, he’s not. Trent affirmed what was already understood, that this was the canon and had been since the Vulgate was published, under Pope Gelasius way back in the 4th century.
“Up until the Reformation the Apocryphal books were not part of the canon.”
Absolutely false. They were a part of the Vulgate, which was the canon.
“The Apocryphal “writings were not officially declared to be divinely inspired, and included in the Catholic canon of Scripture as such, until 1546 at the Council of Trent.”
Also false. Trent affirmed what had been in place long before.
“I’m currently studying that whole deal and am finding some rather compelling reason they were not part of cannon. It seems there are many problems fitting them with other scripture.”
Well get back to us from the church of cynical bear.
Forgot to ping you, sorry.
Baloney. What of the Orthodox? All Trent did was reaffirm the list of books that had always been in the Christian Old Testament.
The Orthodox consider these books as inspired and they don’t accept Trent.
Absolutely, completely, and utterly false.
They were recognized by the Council of Florence in 1442 (Bull of Union with the Copts).
They were recognized by a letter of Pope Innocent I, AD 408.
They were recognized by the 3rd Council of Carthage, AD 397.
They were recognized by the Council of Hippo, AD 393.
They were recognized by the "Tome" of Pope Damasus read at the Council of Rome, AD 382.
At that point, we're back to an era when the New Testament canon was still in flux.
Doesn't it bother you that Protestant apologists blatantly lie about something that can be easily demonstrated from history?
To rightly divide" this fact, one ha to understand a little how the Catholic Church works. And this usually involves shedding the notion of a top-down organization where the top churns out doctrinal precepts and those down the line salute and say, "Yessir, uh, Father, sir."
Whatever you think of the Marian dogmata, it's important to get that one was 'defined' in the middle of the 19th century and the other in the middle of the 20th. Yet they had been discussed and argued and believed by many for centuries before their "definition."
It was only when the Holy See perceived a clamor that it turned the theologians loose with a mandate to come up with some direction. In other words, a with Acts 15, Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Nicea II, and many other councils, an "official" declaration was made in response to conflict or (in the case of the Marian dogmata) loud appeals.
So the delay in closing the OT canon was because there wasn't a pressing need until a whole bunch of people closed it themselves.
Come to think of it, the closing of the NT canon, as I was taught in my not-Catholic seminary, was similarly brought about. Marcion did his own 'sua sponte' closing, so the rest of the Church said, more or less, "Oh Darn, now we're going to have to resolve this somehow."
It's not like there wasn't an opinion, it's just that we don't like to get all official and stuff unless we have to.