5 Myths about 7 Books (the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament)

Catholic Educators ^ | Mark Shea

[Petrosius]

And though Tradition is an incredible resource (the blood, sweat and toil of milenia of sincere Christian life and thought), I doubt we could ever accept it as being on par with the Holy Scriptures - bring that the Scriptures are the very breath of God adn Christians, sincere and saintly as they may be, are still fallible humans.

And so I guess that those early Christians who decided the canon of the Scriptures (with or without the Deuterocanonical books) were also fallible humans.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"If a prophet asks for money, he is a false prophet".

Hey! That's my favorite part!

[PetroniusMaximus]

"And so I guess that those early Christians who decided the canon of the Scriptures (with or without the Deuterocanonical books) were also fallible humans."

Yup. Just like John the Baptist was fallible - yet he was still allowed to point out the Christ.

[Petrosius]

Then how can we trust their judgment on the what should be included within the canon of Scriptures?

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Then how can we trust their judgment on the what should be included within the canon of Scriptures?"

How could the disciple trust the witness of John the Baptist?

(Luke 7:35)

[D-fendr]

Welcome..

and enjoy the living water.

[~Matahari]

It is important that God's people understand why the Apocryphal books (also called the Deuterocanonical Books) are rejected from the canon of inspired Scripture.

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcapocr.htm

”Though some of the Apocryphal books do have historical value, giving information regarding the inter-testament "quiet years" prior to the coming of Christ, there is no justification for giving these a place in the Holy Scripture. Their proper place is on the same level as (if not lower than) the writings of the historian Josephesus or of some other uninspired writer of that period.”

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I trust the fathers of the Church more than the renaissance and later founders, mostly because they were much closer to the source. Therefore their witness, and how they interpreted the teachings have higher value to me than someone in the 1500s, 1800s, or 1900s...This is why I am where I am.

[jo kus]

It is important that God's people understand why the Apocryphal books (also called the Deuterocanonical Books) are rejected from the canon of inspired Scripture. Regards

[Petrosius]

How could the disciple trust the witness of John the Baptist?

John the Baptist was just renewing the message of the Old Covenant by calling the people to repent of their sins and return to the Covenant. With the person of Jesus Christ we have something new. His message that he was the Christ and the Son of God was validated by the Resurrection. The witness of the Apostles to the Resurrection was the testimony about about a factual event. The selection of the canon of the Scripture on the other hand is a question of judgment and authority. As a Catholic I believe that the visible Church has been given the charism of Infallibility. It is with this that I can have confidence in her judgment regarding the selection of Scripture. If we are to reject this and say that the early Church was made up of only fallible men then their selection of the canon must also be fallible. If so, then how can we have confidence that what we call the Word of God truly is? Thus the authority of the Bible itself becomes subject to private judgment.

[magisterium]

It's not really their judgment. The councils and popes involved in determining the canon of Scripture were acting as the human agents for the Holy Spirit. The canon is guaranteed in the same type of way Scripture itself was written: through the human agency of men wielding a pen, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.

We are an incarnational Church, embodied spirits surrounded by matter. Just as Jesus used the physical realm to impart His revelation via physical objects (Himself, as a living human body; mud; spittle; water, wine, the wood of the cross, etc.), so, too, He continued the process to some degree after His ascension. Human beings were left in charge as the visible heads of the Church. But revelation and its guarantees of authenticity were still directly "of God" via the Holy Spirit. Men did not merely make things up as they went along. Sometimes they had direct revelation, as in Acts 10; sometimes they had to feel their way along, as in Acts 15, but the Spirit guided them in either case, mere material creatures though they were.

The Spirit used human beings, empowered by the laying on of hands as per Christ, through inspiration and infallibility, as the physical agents of truth. The canon was determined by the lowly material human beings attending certain councils and ratifying them, and they determined it NOT by themselves, but with the guidance of God. The Bible did not fall to earth from heaven ready-made (in Hebrew, Greek or the KJV), but had to be written, compiled, vetted, canonized and interpreted as Scripture by human agents of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church knows where the Bible truly came from. It's her own book. Those who are so familiar with the Fathers that they can rummage through the entire 37-volume set looking for rare and obscure exceptions to the Sensus Catholicus of the early Church, seem to be acting disingenuously when they plead that they cannot understand how the Church got the Bible. They only compound things when they additionally claim that the deuterocanonicals deserve to be removed from the canon when they cannot cite any reason, without acknowledging the authority of incarnate, human members of the Church acting as representatives of Christ, why there is a canon of Scripture at all.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"I trust the fathers of the Church more than the renaissance and later founders, mostly because they were much closer to the source"

I trust the early fathers also. But it's a false analogy to compare/contrast early fathers to reformation leaders. The comparison is reformation leaders focusing on the Bible to contemporary Catholic leadership focusing on Tradition.

When you read Paul and the Apostles you are reading the original source of all Tradition. It is uneffected by even the fainted possibility of doctrinal drift.

[PetroniusMaximus]

" John the Baptist was just renewing the message of the Old Covenant "

What I am saying is that John was granted the privelege to recognize the Messiah by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

It is similar to those in the early Church who were allowed to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit in certain books.




"The selection of the canon of the Scripture on the other hand is a question of judgment and authority. "

The early fathers did not convey to the canonical works any authority that they did not already posess.



"If we are to reject this and say that the early Church was made up of only fallible men then their selection of the canon must also be fallible."

Was John the Baptist infallable?

[Petrosius]

It is similar to those in the early Church who were allowed to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit in certain books.

Was the early Church also able to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit in certain Church teachings and practices? When did the Church loose this ability?

[Campion]

When you read Paul and the Apostles you are reading the original source of all Tradition. It is uneffected by even the fainted possibility of doctrinal drift.

The problem for your claim of "doctrinal drift," PM, is that there is far more doctrinal drift evident among the churches that claim to follow sola scriptura than there is among those who claim to follow scripture plus tradition.

We've been separated from the Armenians and the Copts since the council of Chalcedon (AD 451), yet we are in closer doctrinal agreement with them than the Missouri Synod Lutherans are with the Southern Baptists -- not to mention that we are in closer agreement with the Armenians and Copts than we are with the Southern Baptists.

We don't claim that the writings of the Fathers are on par with Scripture. Scripture is inspired. Even the most authoritative patristic documents (e.g., the dogmatic decrees of the ecumenical councils) aren't inspired, only infallible. ("Inspiration" is the positive protection that guarantees that a document says exactly what God wishes it to say; "infallibility" is a much weaker negative protection that guarantees that a document will not say what God cannot permit it say.)

But if you use tradition to bind your understanding of Scripture to "what is believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone" (St. Vincent of Lerins) -- that is, you make sure that you're understanding the Bible in a way that is compatible with the way the Church has understood it in the past -- you are actually insuring yourself against doctrinal drift.

Ironically, part of what Luther did was to rediscover authentic Catholic tradition that had become obscured, not in the official teaching of the Church, but in the popular piety of the Catholics of his day. Unfortunately, he didn't stop there. If he had, we might today call him St. Martin of Wittenberg, Priest and Doctor.

[jcb8199]

Excellent site! The only one like it I've seen was the earlychristianwritings.com site, but this one seems a little more user friendly. Thanks for posting it!

[jcb8199]

Father Larry Richards discusses the Mass in an audio program available from the Mary Foundation, and the Conversion of Scott Hahn is a good listen, too...

[jcb8199]

Tell that to Benny Hinn or John Hagee or other scam-artists...the guys who seem to forget the part of the NT that says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven...

[jcb8199]

You must have missed the part of the article that pointed out that there are several references in the NT to the Deuterocanonicals (Jesus and the Apostles quoting the Deuterocanon, for instance)...

[jcb8199]

Justin Martyr convinced me, and I'm a Catholic! In his Apology (the First), when he describes (nearly 1900 years ago) the way that they practiced their worship, and it is virtually identical to the Catholic Mass on Sunday, I was floored:

CHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

CHAPTER LXVII -- WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIANS.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

---

Compare those passages to worship on Sunday at a Catholic Mass and you'll be amazed--prayer, readings, homily, greeting, Eucharist, prayer, leave (and Communion is taken to those who were not able to be present). And this was 1,850 years ago that he wrote it...