**The books of the Catholic Bible are the books that all Christians traditionally accepted.**
I think the article was talking about ‘after their adoption. Even Luther accepted them as a Catholic priest, untillllllll he chose to dissent and nailed his list to the church door.
posted on 07/19/2008 9:35:49 AM PDT
(With God all things are possible.)
I think the article was talking about after their adoption. Even Luther accepted them as a Catholic priest, untillllllll he chose to dissent and nailed his list to the church door.
Even if that is what the author meant, it still would be incorrect. There were Catholic contemporary opponents of Martin Luther that opposed establishing the Apocrypha as cannon. These included Cardinal Ximenes - who compiled a Bible that didn't contain the Apocrypha - and 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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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 Catejan in a commentary discussing the Augustine Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
Even on the Council there were those that flatly opposed the canonical authority of the Apocrypha.
Excerpt from Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent,
by Catholic historian Hubert Jedin: "Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.
More quotes from Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent, here.
Be warned, it is a Reformationist website, but quotes the work of Jedin on the Council of Trent at length.
I'm pretty sure that Luther accepted the Apocrypha in the same way that Pope Gregory the Great, St. Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes accepted them, as useful for edification, but not inspired. The later rejection of the books for use in teaching, I think, is a result of the fight, not the content.
posted on 07/19/2008 11:04:17 AM PDT
("Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world... and she walks into mine.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson