Posted on 10/30/2013 2:07:54 PM PDT by dangus
"Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
St. Jerome's preface to the Books of Wisdom.
I long ago read where St. Jerome calls anyone who claims he disdains the canon of the Septuagint, "a fool or a slanderer." He says he was merely representing the opinions of the Jews. For me, that always settled the matter of St. Jerome's opinion of the canon of the Septuagint. But one thing always stuck in my craw: given the previous quote, St. Jerome seems to be blustering a little: It does seem quite reasonable to interpret that passage as meaning that St. Jerome doesn't regard them as being sacred scripture.
The passage is not the clear repudiation of their canonicity that it appears to be. In several other places, St. Jerome contradicts this interpretation directly, and we have to interpret the passage in that light:
Several Church Fathers argued against using the "apocrypha" to gain converts among the Jews. So it's also quite reasonable to suppose that St. Jerome merely meant, "don't use these books to convince anyone of the authority the ecclesiastical dogmas, (since they won't believe you). Use them merely to help those who have already converted to grow further in their faith." But still...
Then I got ... once again... into a quarrel in yet another thread about the Catholic church "adding" the apocrypha to the canon and I came across a simple, but powerful discovery:
I had always regarded the Vulgate as a single publication. I hadn't realized it was issued over several years. St. Jerome's preface to the Books of Wisdom was published years before his prefaces to the Books of Judith and Tobit. Read them:
Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to decide to displease the opinions of the Pharisees and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.St. Jerome's preface to the Book of Tobit.
But Bishop Cromatius and Bishop Heliodorus are only two people? OK, he calls those Jews who retain the smaller canon, "Pharisees". But apologists might still claim that Jerome's earlier prologue bears greater weight, and that he only is caving to the demands of two bishops, whereas before he was stating the opinion of the Church. But read this still later passage:
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; the warrant for affirming these disputed texts 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. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.St. Jerome's preface to the Book of Judith.
Now, we can understand St. Jerome's anger he expresses when he uses terms like "fool" and "slanderer"! Whatever opinions St. Jerome might have developed on his own, he has submitted his own opinion to that of the Church, which has made its own opinion the subject of an ecumenical council!
It's altogether reasonable to read these prefaces as St. Jerome "evolving" his views, rather than taking greater concern not to be misread. It's reasonable to reconcile prefaces which at least appear contradictory, in the light of a greater historical context. It's NOT reasonable to read his preface to the Books of Wisdom as indicating that the Church did not consider the "apocrypha" to be scripture, but then ignore St. Jerome's assertion that a universal council of the entire Christian world, held to define mandatory and infallible doctrine, contradicted that reading.
This is what just galls me: Every single Protestant discussion of the canon or St. Jerome's opinion of the canon excludes his prefaces to the Book of Judith and to the Book of Tobit. Every one. And this, then, is the hope Catholics have for the salvation of Protestants: that they have had no free choice to follow the true Church which Jesus, himself, founded. They have been led astray by "fools and slanderers," who have concealed the truth from them. Those "Protestants" who knew the truth in the time of Martin Luther were anathematized by the Council of Trent, because there was no way they could possibly believe the assertion that the Church had just added such books to the canon. But today's Protestants adamantly believe this assertion for no-one has told them otherwise. Hence, their ignorance is "invinceable."
You claim I’ve been led astray “by “fools and slanderers,” who have concealed the truth”, and that I “ have had no free choice to follow the true Church which Jesus, himself, founded” - and you don’t consider that an attack on my beliefs?
OK........
Did Jesus establish priests? No. There are no priests mentioined in the NT except for Jesus as High Priest, and all believers offering a sacrifice of good deeds, thanksgiving, etc. There is no Purgatory in the NT, although IF Purgatory existed, it would be a powerful tool to intimidate people into fearful obedience. There is no mention of indulgences, and the entire tenor of the NT rejects the concept completely and totally.
Further, Jesus Himself described the extent of the OT. Why should we look to a Church Council in the 1400s when we have the words of Jesus?
THAT is why I reject Catholicism. Its doctrines are divorced from the plain meaning of scripture, which is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations - because wherever they appeared, people started noticing the huge divide between the Catholic theology and the scripture.
“Jesus did not leave us a list of inspired Old Testament books. However, following the traditional Jewish view of the canon, he referred to the Scriptures by the threefold division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. The term Psalms was another way of referring to the third major category of the Hebrew canonical writings, commonly known as the Hagiographa, of which the Psalms held the most prominent place. Thus, if we can determine which books comprised each of these three categories for the Hebrews, we will then know which books Jesus believed inspired.
Historically, the Old Testament canon was divided into three major categories under the general headings of: the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa. As mentioned above, this threefold classification is referred to by Jesus, but there are many additional witnesses as well, proving that this was not just the personal view of Jesus, but the tradition of the Jewish nation as a whole.”
From Josephus:
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.”
As F.F. Bruce has written:
Our Lord and his apostles might differ from the religious leaders of Israel about the meaning of the scriptures; there is no suggestion that they differed about the limits of the scriptures. ‘The scriptures’ on whose meaning they differed were not an amorphous collection: when they spoke of ‘the scriptures’ they knew which writings they had in mind and could distinguish them from other writings which were not included in ‘the scriptures’.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart1.html
“Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.
But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false.”
Care to know the source?
Ah, yes, the Glossa Ordinaria.
Had my discussion gone beyond Jerome, I would be totally remiss not to mention the Glossa Ordinaria,... but also the Council of Florence, of which you make no mention.
The Glossa was a compilation of works from various theologians, including Walafrid Strabo (who was once thought to be lead author by some early modern authors), who seems to be quite familiar with Jerome’s denigration of the deuterocanonicals in his prologue to the Books of Wisdom, but neither his apologia or his prologues to Judith or Tobit, or the assertion that the Council of Nicea established the books as Canonical. Based on monks being educated with this work, there actually was significant confusion: The Glossa didn’t differentiate among authors, and thus appeared to present Strabo’s statement as representative of Church scholarship.
But here again, we see the Protestant Apologists’ knack for proof-texting history. Contrary to Protestant analysis which asks, “how could such opinion be so widely spread if it were counter to the Catholic theology?,” Councils prior to Trent *did,* in fact, react with alarm to the accidental spreading of false theology.
During the Council of Florence, wherein representatives of the East and West concurred that there was no valid theological disagreement between the Eastern and Western churches (a conclusion sadly countered by Eastern political leaders once word got back to the East), a list of infalllible doctrines common to both churches was created. The Decretum Pro Jacobitis established a uniform set books of the bible, which all Christians were obliged to defend as doctrinally required. Normally, the East avoids such definitions, but there was the Strabo problem in the West, which made it necessary. Following the issue of the Decretum, the Strabo’s Glossa Ordinaria virtually disappeared from currency.
“B-b-b-but,” the protestant apologists say, “the Council of Florence didn’t use the word, ‘canon.’” Precisely: the word created confusion as to whether it referred to the Hebrew bible or the Christian bible, and the Eastern church rejected the notion of there being any authority separate from the bishops altogether. The fixation on “canon” implies a validity to the notion of sola scriptura which was altogether alien prior to Luther, apart from the mission of evangelizing Jews.
So, no, in discussing Jerome, I failed to mention the Glossa Ordinaria, or the Council of Florence, which was required to repudiate it.
Oh, and just to be clear:
The Council of Florence was “ecumenical,” meaning that it was regarded as infallible, and thus representing the consensus of Catholic thought throughout history. And while it was 11 centuries later than the Council of Nicea, it was still a full century earlier than Martin Luther’s controversy.
In re-reading that, I should probably counter anyone believing I mean to imply that the Glossa was a catalyst for the Council of Florence. Infinitely more important was the unification of the East and the West; clearing away any theological controversy engendered by the Glossa or any other source was absolutely merely followed this primary objective.
“or the assertion that the Council of Nicea established the books as Canonical”
Really? I understand what Jerome wrote, but can you point to where the Council of Nicea actually established the list? And if they did, why did the Council of Trent need to address the issue in the 1500s, and why did Catholic scholars prior to Trent feel free to debate the canon status of books?
Jesus gave what He considered scripture, and the Glossa Ordinaria agreed with Him and Jerome.
And please remember the Council of Trent specifically and deliberately avoided the issue of the Apocrypha and authority. They listed most of the Apocrypha as canon, but punted on what ‘canon’ meant.
Actually, I have no idea why the Council of Trent felt they needed to address the issue again. Maybe the Council of Nicea failed to anathamatize anyone who disagreed with the list. I don’t much care and can’t for the life of me see how it could matter to the discussion WHY they did. But your assertion, “... Catholic scholars prior to Trent feel free to debate the canon status of books ... “ is at least wrong; Jerome certainly felt obliged to obey Nicea. Perhaps Walafrid Strabo was simply ignorant on the matter because his source for the Nicene Council omitted the list.
But if you’re suggestion is that the Council of Nicea didn’t publish such a list and that St. Jerome, who was intimately familiar with the Council was wrong about it, (it is missing from our currently surviving document) then you are obviously continuing to ignore the Council of Florence, another ecumenical council uniting not just Roman Catholics but Orthodox as well, which held that it was binding doctrine throughout the history of the Church that the deuterocanonicals established necessary doctrine.
>> Jesus gave what He considered scripture, and the Glossa Ordinaria agreed with Him and Jerome. <<
Never. And if you suppose that because Jesus never quoted five of the seven books in question, you should know that he also never quoted nearly half of the Old Testament books, including most of the Khetuvim.
And if you’re thinking that medieval scholars were way too on the ball to allow the circulation of an error like that in the Glossa, the Donation of Constantine has a whopping pile of theological errors which for centuries hobbled the papacy. (Since the forged document claimed that Constantinople was the property of Rome, most people who know of it presume that various Pope’s gullibility was self-serving, totally ignoring the fact that it also falsely purported that the apostles had advocated a highly decentralized ecclesiastical structure, which for five centuries left Rome largely barren of population, broke, and powerless.) People didn’t have the internet back then, and they fastidiously preserved anything; many people who might have doubted Strabo’s assertions would nonetheless never even contemplate “correcting” a historical document.
“But your assertion, “... Catholic scholars prior to Trent feel free to debate the canon status of books ... “ is at least wrong”
No.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html
Even the Council of Trent refused to make a decision, as I’ve already pointed out to you, concerning the status of the Apocrypha and what was meant by “canon”.
Nicea did not address the canon:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
“You claim I’ve been led astray “by “fools and slanderers,” who have concealed the truth”, and that I “ have had no free choice to follow the true Church which Jesus, himself, founded”
Actually, I didn’t say that.
“and you don’t consider that an attack on my beliefs?”
Woah, woah, woah. Flag on the play.
We were talking about attacks on protestants, not attacks on protestant theology. No changing the subject in midstream, slippery sam.
I will concede that those words are an attack on protestant theology. They are not an attack *on*protestants*. I am under the impression that attacks on ideas are in bounds here.
“Did Jesus establish priests? No. There are no priests mentioned in the NT except for Jesus as High Priest”
So, your position is that Our Lord has had no influence on human events since the ascension? Nor the Holy Spirit, nor God Himself? If it ain’t in the Bible, it didn’t happen? God is prevented from establishing a priesthood, now or ever, because it’s not in the Bible?
“There is no mention of indulgences, and the entire tenor of the NT rejects the concept completely and totally.”
Indulgences, yes, that’s such a big part of Catholicism. A few hundred years ago there were many corrupt men within the Church. Everybody knows it. And it has nothing at all to do with the character of the Church herself.
“Further, Jesus Himself described the extent of the OT. Why should we look to a Church Council in the 1400s when we have the words of Jesus?”
You haven’t been reading along, have you?
“Its doctrines are divorced from the plain meaning of scripture”
Not at all.
“which is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations”
Nonsense. If vernacular translations have taught us anything, it is that they are a door through which error enters—some inadvertent, some malicious.
“because wherever they appeared, people started noticing the huge divide between the Catholic theology and the scripture.”
When they appeared, the power structure in England had a vested interest in ensuring that the “approved translation” would create that impression.
Bumpus ad summum
“If vernacular translations have taught us anything, it is that they are a door through which error enters—some inadvertent, some malicious.”
Ah yes...trust the Pope, not the Word of God. That pretty well sums up Catholic theology - trust men, not God’s Word.
But what did Peter write?
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Why?
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.
Jesus gave the Canon of the Old Testament, and the scripture - “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work.” - is the “breath of God”.
The introduction of priests, offering a sacrifice of Jesus, is completely contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament. There were none, and the New Testament makes it clear that we have a High Priest, Jesus, and that ALL believers are priests who offer sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise and good deeds - but no one sacrifices Jesus:
“11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
There are no more sacrifices to be given, for the Word of God says “this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins”, and “by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy”. It is not like the Old Testament, when priests were needed, because the Holy Spirit now lives within us:
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
As Jesus said:
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me...When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment...But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
At the once for all sacrifice of God, the veil was torn, from top to bottom.
23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever...
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to [Peter] in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
The Priesthood of the Catholic Church is a continuation of the Priesthood of Aaron & the Old Testament. It makes men happy, but it defies the will of God. For God has replaced a human priesthood with the priesthood of Jesus Himself. The Word of God is clear: The sacrifice of Jesus was “once for all”, not to be repeated and not a perpetual on-going sacrifice. It is also clear that the Old Covenant has been replaced, and God Himself dwells in us: “ Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?”
Immanuel. “God with us”.
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to show me with the NewAdvent link. I already stated that the canon is lost. BUt it’s not like we don’t have the histrorical record of the canon; we even have Jerome himself! How do you figure that page in any way advances your argument? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the absence of evidence in one particular place... even with abundance of evidence elsewhere ... is evidence of absence?
But on the other hand, you point me to “ChristianTruth.com” which refers to ... but curiously fails to cite ... a 1967 edition of a work which is not on the internet. I’m sure you visited some university library to look that one up, to find out if the interpretation (after all, it’s a reference, not a citation) is reasonable before you repeated it.
But I actually do know enough about the Council of Florence that I can let you in on what’s going on: Ecumenical councils are not infallible unless a pope rules that a synod constitutes an ecumenical council. Infallibility rests in the Chair of St. Peter (the papacy), and in the those invested with apostolic authority (the bishops) when they speak in one voice as one body including the Chair of St. Peter. If a synod doesn’t include the Chair of St. Peter, it’s not an ecumenical council in the theological sense, even if it was gathered to be an ecumenical council.
So this ecumenical council included divergent parties; one party even tried to depose Pope! In the end, the various parties reconciled, and a single consensus document was created with the consent of all parties. This document was then rendered infallible by a papal bull.
The papal bull was issued (1) by the Pope (2) from the Chair of St Peter, (3) to establish (4) doctine (5) for the entire Church. There’s your formula for infallibility under Catholic doctrine. To a non-Catholic, i expected that it would be more impressive that the entire Church — east and west — unanimously agreed that the canon was doctrine at the Council of Florence and the glossa faded from history immediately afterward. But if infallibility is your key, the papal bull itself was infallible even if it lent infallibility to only one document.
To ward off some nits: you may very well find some Catholics with a minimalist scope of infallibility claim that the Pope has ever uncontestedly invoked infallibility three times. This comes from the church liberals who want to argue that God is OK with voting for baby killers. This bull is not one of them. But their argument is one that is self-contradicting: it’s based on the enumeration that it’s only infallible if it’s necessary to establish doctrine; then they turn their own logic on its head to claim that it’s not doctrine because it’s not infallible... which means that their argument fails their first test.
Anyway, the point here is that it is contestible whether the papal bull is infallible in the matter of the canon, only because it’s not clear that the doctrine already existed.
And just to be clear, the reason it’s unclear is solely that such historical evidences for the Council of Nicea as St. Jerome’s assertion are not infallible, even if their historical value is unquestionable.
One last point:
The whole reason Luther argued against the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals is because they flatly contradicted his doctrine. And again, the Protestant issue with their canonicity is over whether there exists some distinction between an “ecclesiastical canon” and a “scriptural canon.”
But what of it?
A single passage of Maccabees teaches participatory atonement, prevening grace, prayer for the deceased and the existence of a sentient state in the afterlife that may not be defined precisely enough within Maccabees to be called “purgatory,” but certainly is neither Heaven or eternal damnation.
If one believes Protestant theology, Maccabees becomes perhaps the most damnable book ever written, the most grave moral threat to salvation comprehensible, the very defect of the Catholic church which Protestants believe Catholics can only be saved in spite of. So whereas a Catholic (such as St. Jerome) may find such doctrines hinted at in other books (1 Peter, Hebrew, James, Revelation, etc.), and could reasonably distinguish between a “scriptural book” useful for establishing the authority of the Church and an “ecclesiastical book” using for strengthening and teaching catechumens who have already accepted that authority, how can a Protestant begin to accept such a notion? Jerome’s alleged belief may be plausible to the readers of the Glossa Ordinaria, but how can it be plausible to any reasonable Protestant?
“The whole reason Luther argued against the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals is because they flatly contradicted his doctrine.”
No. The closest one came come to a doctrine ‘proved’ by the Apocrypha would be prayer for the dead, which even then is suggested by one or two verses. Luther had no ‘need’ to remove the Apocrypha over doctrine. He removed it for the same reason Jerome rejected it - because it was not good for doctrine, correction and reproof, as scripture is. It was not accepted as scripture by Jesus or the Apostles.
To challenge the Catholic Church on theology, all Luther needed to do was translate the New Testament and get it into the hands of commoners. Scripture is an arrow in the heart of Catholic theology.
Nonsense. Go check his 97 theses: No mention of the “apocrypha.” It was after the debate at Leipzig (I believe; I might have mixed up confrontations) that Luther, shown that the bible very clearly argues against Luther, that Luther moved against the “apocrypha”
“Ah yes...trust the Pope, not the Word of God.”
Your talent for getting things backwards is astounding.
The reason to eschew vernacular translations, or at least to keep them subordinate to the Vulgate, is to prevent men—popes or anyone else—from tampering with the Bible.
Because Latin is a so-called dead-language, it is frozen in time. The meanings of words do not change; new idioms do not enter dead languages as they do those in use today. Besides, translation is always an opportunity for people to produce what the Bible “ought” to say, according to them, rather than what it says.
Here’s a common translation of a prayer called Anima Christi.
Soul of Christ, make me holy
Body of Christ, be my salvation
Blood of Christ, let me drink your wine
Water flowing from the side of Christ, wash me clean
Passion of Christ, strengthen me
Kind Jesus, hear my prayer
Hide me within your wounds
And keep me close to you
Defend me from the evil enemy
And call me at the hour of my death
To the fellowship of your saints
That I might sing your praise with them for all eternity.
Amen.
Now, here’s a response that appeared in a discussion of that translation.
I’m sorry to say, with all friendly intentions, that I don’t think much of your interpretation of the Anima Christi. I always say it in Latin, but what it means to me is:
Soul of Christ, sanctify me. (Work within my heart to make it a fit place for You to bide. Chop, prune, dig, plow, pull up stumps with mules, slash and burn, do what You must to turn that jungle into a place that does not offend You.)
Body of Christ, save me. (Save me from my own sinful nature, save me from eternal damnation, save me from doing things that offend you, save me from the Evil One.)
Blood of Christ, inebriate me. (Make me drunk on love of You, drunk on Your love, drunk from contemplation of Your Mercy, Your Sacrifice, Your Pain, Your Glory, Your Sacred Heart, Your Precious Blood, Your Victory, Your Presence.)
Water from the side of Christ, wash me. (Wash away my sins and sinfulness. Make me clean enough to prostrate myself before You.)
Passion of Christ, strengthen me. (My Jesus, I know my sins have wounded Thy loving heart. Through Thy bitter Passion and death, free me from the power of sin and give me a new heart.)
Good Jesus, hear me. (Word Incarnate, despise not my words, I humbly implore you.)
Within Your wounds hide me. (Let your five Sacred Wounds be my refuge from the Evils of Satan and the world—a refuge I can never deserve, but crave like the breath of life itself.)
And let me not be separated from You. (Only through my own sloth or sinful nature could I separate myself from You. If I should again become lost, I pray You again come find me, and deliver me yet again from the eternal loss of Your presence.)
From the hosts of Evil defend me. (But grant me the Grace to welcome whatever it may please you to send me each and every day, however unjust or crushing it may seem to me in my folly and ignorance, because it is that which You have foreseen, decreed, and ordained from all eternity.)
At the hour of my death call me and bid me come to You (Most of your creatures fear death, oh Lord of all joy, but if death brings me to You, I beg that You delay not one additional day after my course shall be run and my duties discharged.)
That together with Your saints I may praise You for all eternity. (But how could I ever deserve such honor, such joy, such peace? My sins have earned me only the fires of Hell. How can I escape Your justice except through Your love and mercy, and it is there that my faith and hope repose. Look not upon my sins, Lord, but upon my broken and contrite heart, for this is the sacrifice that You will not reject.)
Amen.
And here’s the Latin, in case you want to do your own translation.
Anima Christi, sanctifica me
Corpus Christi, salva me
Sanguis Christi, inebria me
Aqua lateris Christi, lava me
Passio Christi, conforta me
O bone Jesu, exaudi me
Intra tua vulnera absconde me
Ne permitas me separari a te
Ab hoste maligno defende me.
In hora mortis meae voca me
Et iube me venire ad te
Ut cum Sanctis tuis laudem te
In secula seculorum.
Amen.
Note how each line ends with the long A sound, as in the word “may.” It has meter and rhyme, and is a very inspiring, humbling prayer.
The first translation didn’t even have to sport many changes to bleed the raw power from this prayer. In like manner, some translations of the Bible change the meaning of crucial passages. And, of course, the deletion of entire books has had catastrophic effects.
We cling to the Latin not out of obedience to the Holy Father, but to keep him or anyone else from tampering with the Bible and other—necessarily subordinate—writings.
As a Catholic, whenever I am thinking about a theological proposition or the content of some private revelation, the first thing I consider is, “Does this contradict Scripture in any way?”
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.