Replies

Please, the deuterocanonical books were in the Bible and reaffirmed...

If all the books were indisputably accepted as fully canonical -- (hint; for long ages they simply were not) why the invention of the term "deuterocanon" in era of Trent, and why in the voting among assembled bishops was the vote to include Apocrypha (St. Jerome's term for the books in dispute) not unanimous?

It should have been unanimous if those writings had long held full acceptance, were considered fully on par with what Jews refer to as Tanakh.

Jerome (mid-4th to early 5th century) wrote of the Apocrypha as being "ecclesiastical writings" worthy of being read in church, but not (as Jerome clearly stated) to be used as basis for church doctrine. In saying so, Jerome was following predecessors from within the Church as it was in his own era, and (I think it reasonable to assume) had that thinking much ratified within himself during his extended stay among the Jews --in Ceasarea, I think it was...

I always wonder what Protestants think when reading Saint Augustine (354-430) and seeing his reference to deuterocanonical works as biblical.

Without going into precisely what Augustine may have written in that regard, what do [Roman] Catholics think when reading Jerome's introductions to each book of what is today referred to among Catholics as deuterocanon wherein he most definitely labeled those books as not fully canonical?

I've seen a few treatments, but boy, howdy... how they tie their own thinking in veritable knots, stringing together far-flung cherry-picking obtained, isolated quotations from here and there, massaging those greatly, doing so while studiously avoiding all evidences and testimonies that would serve to refute an apparent cherished view, that seems to me goes something like this;

Jerome's comments survived in Latin texts of Scripture up to early in the 16th century, and as I understand it, can be found in in the Complutensian Polyglot sponsored by Cardinal Cisnero, a man who has been labeled as having been strongly puritan in outlook.

Another from early in the 16th century, one who was sent to confront (and correct) Luther (but not pertaining to bible canon) Cardinal Cajetan;

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Additional reference support for the above, provided by William Webster on his treatment of the same citation of Cajetan; See also Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

From down-page at the following link (nearer to bottom than top of page), one which I do not demand nor expect to be taken entirely without reservation in the writer's (the William Webster mentioned above) own commentary portions, but which nonetheless has all in one place a [partial] listing of commentary regarding OT canon historical viewpoint from within the Church; http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html

13th Century
The Ordinary Gloss upon the Bible known as the Glossa Ordinaria - This became the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the Western Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance:
A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of "glosses" on the text of a given MS. The earliest glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century...Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best-known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries...So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philisophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called "the tongue of Scripture" and "the bible of scholasticism" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Glossa Ordinaria; Glosses, Biblical, pp. 515-516).
The Glossa ordinaria states in the Preface that the Church permits the reading of the apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of Faith. It goes on to state that there are 22 books of the OT. In listing those 22 books it uses the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support and when commenting on the apocyphal books it prefixes an introduction to them all saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiaticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.'

Now that I've (not W. Webster here) provided information and links which do include display of real & genuine history, (and did answer the question -- "what Protestants think when reading Saint Augustine") I suppose I could thank you for the 'heads up' which you had provided.

You began your note with #Fakehistory, which was what flowed from your keyboard from then on...

That's not all your own fault though, I think, but likely more due to having been misinformed by [Roman] Catholic apologists on this issue who have long sought to use this issue as some sort of beat-down device to be wielded against so-called "Protestants", with (sad to say?) men such as Webster, in his own opposition to misinformation long promulgated from within [Roman] Catholic circles, "wielding" the issue as beat-down device also, figuratively swinging for their heads, it seems to me from here in the cheap-seats peanut gallery.

What does matter in all of this, why this issue is so important, is just what precisely Jesus Christ came to fulfill -- and what He did not.

In regards to the contents of what Catholics refer to as deuterocanon, that needs be identified and differentiated. As for that deuterocanon (aka OT Apocrypha); Jerome, Cajetan and many, many other well informed, erudite churchmen of old cautioned was not to be sourced for basis of doctrine, although fit to be read from within Church, and thus by extension isolated passages from those "ecclesiatical writings" (not to be confused with remainder of Holy Writ) for better or for worse ...did end up within portions of Church liturgy, some passages arriving there, from quite early on within Church History (as Jerome, and all the rest of the demurral supplying dissenters would be quite aware of, even when they raised precautionary flags of sort).

As I would caution; so-called "deuterocanon" should be set aside for finer-grained filtering, sifting out those things which have no real continual support, no "golden threads" of constancy of message from what is indisputably OT (Old Testament, Jewish "bible" aka Tanakh) and which thematic threads are also supported widely throughout the New Testament.