Historically, the Bible is a Catholic book. The New Testament was written, copied, and collected by Catholic Christians. The official canon of the books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Thus, it is from the Catholic Church that the Protestants have a Bible at all.
So once again you trot out this parroted polemical assertion, and so once again - since you simply have refused to do so each time before - then basic questions must be answered if this assertion is to have any impact. To refuse to do so is an admission that you have no viable argument. Which questions are:
Is an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
However, by posting this polemic then you have basically affirmed this damming premise (see below), though you supply this polemic in a PDF format, and this one) seems to disallow copying, and with no attribution of author which would make it easier to find, so that one is deterred from refuting it! How Roman of you,
But i will do so in part, by God's grace.
For sixteen centuries the Christian OT was a matter of uncontested faith...The canon of the Bible was officially determined in the late fourth century....Not until the Reformation was there any more debate about the contents of the Bible.
Pure prevaricating propaganda! As even the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)
● The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) ^
Luther and the Reformers (overall) treated the Apocrypha as many others did, which was that these books were not to be held as equal to the Scriptures, but were useful and good to read, but not for establishment of doctrine. Luther's Bible included all the books, but following Catholic tradition, he placed doubtful ones separately, while his views on some of these books (which he prefaced them with) may have changed in later years. Due to his shorter New Testament canon (Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John being seen as doubtful), the 66 book Protestant canon is not the same as his, but it is more ancient than that of Rome's, as its 39 book O.T. canon is that which was most likely held by Palestinian Jews (note that the Lord affirmed the Scribe and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, and they would have held to a Palestinian canon) from before the 3rd century. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
The Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus and the NT writers...
Most often, yet what the RC leaves out, or knows not, is that,
Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.
Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.
Moreover, simply because Scripture quotes from a source does not make the whole of it canonical, as Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)
Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,
Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)
Also,
The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.
And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) ^
research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumram discovered ancient copies of some of the disputed books, making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds.
However, what the RC fails to tell you, or is ignorant of, is that,
these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd
And only two of the apocryphal books were found, while one of the additional books was Pslam 51, which Rome rejects as canonical. Thus it is Rome's argument for the apocryphal books that is supportable based on the DSS.
The principal reason Luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the Christian OT is that they taught doctrines he did not like, such as praying for the dead.
Actually, in 158 Luther wrote,
As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: “Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.” And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. For vigils and requiem masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and are merely the devil’s annual fair. Nor have we anything in Scripture concerning purgatory. It too was certainly fabricated by goblins. Therefore, I maintain it is not necessary to believe in it; although all things are possible to God, and he could very well allow souls to be tormented after their departure from the body. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/11/luthers-prayers-for-dead.html
In addition, Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting certain books, and his views (like early church leaders) were part of a process of development, and had the support of scholarly principles, and that of substantial Catholic scholarship from antiquity and right into Trent over the certain books, especially those of the apocrypha. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282. More)
But here is the real question: Which OT would you rather use - the OT used by Jesus, the NT and the early church, or OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ and persecuted Christ?
As his premise is false so is his rhetorical conclusion. Ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to. Note that the so-called “Council” of Jamnia, and see below, is considered to be theoretical, with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia) The Catholic Encyclopedia itself affirms the Palestinian canon as consisting of the same books. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
● The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, which is seen to reflect the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, which divides books the Jews referred to as single works.
Researchers also state,
[Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) 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."
Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division
While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)
● The available historical evidence indicates that in the Jewish mind a collection of books existed from at least 400 B.C. in three groups, two of them fluid, 22 (24 by another manner of counting) in number, which were considered by the Jews from among the many other existing books as the only ones for which they would die rather than add to or take away from them, books which they considered veritably from God...The Apocrypha are not included. (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/11_apocrypha_young.pdf)
● Although some apocryphal books contain a few texts which correspond to New Testament ones, this is also true of some works which are found outside the apocrypha, which the Bible sometimes quotes from. (Acts 17:28; Jude 1:14) Texts from the apocrypha were occasionally quoted in early church writings, and were considered worthy reading even if not included as Scripture, but the apocrypha was not accepted in such early O.T. lists as that of Melito (AD 170) bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor, who gives a list of the Hebrew canon, minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:
Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs or Wisdom,2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah,3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.4
1. 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.
2. Proverbs was sometimes called "Wisdom" according to Eusebius, (Ec clesiastical History 4.22.9.)
3. Understood to include Lamentations, not being the custom of the times to list it separately.
4.Ezra and Nehemiah were then counted as one book, and sometimes was called simply Esdras (Greek for Ezra). (http://www.bible-researcher.com/melito.html)
● Origen in the 2nd century (c. 240) rejected the apocrypha as he held to the Palestinian canon (plus the Letter of Jeremiah), and likewise Cyril of Jerusalem (plus Baruch), but like St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) and Rufinus who also rejected the apocrypha, Origen used them or parts thereof , as others also did with these second class books.
● Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,
Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
Like as Luther's inclusion of books in his Bible which he disallowed as canonical, the apocryphal books had been disallowed by Jerome as properly canonical even though they were included in them.
It is argued that Jerome later accepted the apocrypha due to him later translating them and including them in his Latin Vulgate, but what he translated with certainty only includes a couple (Tobit and Judith), and which was due to a request in the later case and (likely) pressure in both, and which he could allow due to some Catholic sanction. Regarding Judith he states, “But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request.” And as regards Tobit: “But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.”
These do not reflect his own judgment on them as inspired Scripture, but that of a church yet in flux as regards the status of all the apocrypha. Some think Jerome later defended the apocrypha based on comments about Daniel, but which is countered here
● Anastasius (c. 367) of Antioch in the 4th century also considered the apocryphal book inferior in quality, and held to the Palestinian canon except that he included Baruch (Jeremiah’s scribe) and omitted Esther (which never actually mentions God and it canonicity disputed among Jews for some time).
Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.
● The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults
● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.
● The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html)
● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
● Likewise Rufinus:
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html)
In addition, none of the texts from apocryphal books are quoted as being "Scripture," or "the word of God/the Lord" or "God said" or "it is written," as is so often the case with those from the Hebrew canon, from the Lord refuting the devil to Him substantiating His claims and mission to the Jews and the disciples. (Mt. 4; 22; Lk. 24:27,44)
and who deliberately added the word "alone" to Sacred Scripture in his translation of Romans 3:28.
If the RC ever tried that off here, he could have seen that numerous Cath authors did likewise , while Luther did not make holding to this or his canon binding, while Rome certainly cannot boast of fidelity in her Bible translations .
Pope Innocent 1 (401-417) approved the 73 book canon and closed the canon of the Bible.
More prevaricating propaganda.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),
► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
►The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)
►It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)
► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291) ^
▀ Prior lists were by councils that were not ecumenical/infallible.
► “...at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense...” (The Catholic encyclopedia, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6099)
► “Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.
► “The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
► “The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)
The official canon of the books of the Bible was authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.
>
The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
Therefore what can be said is that although the Roman Catholic canon was largely settled by the time of Carthage, it was not infallibly defined (thus disallowing dissent), and thus substantial disagreement did exist even in the deliberations of Trent, despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence. The canon of Trent was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation, apparently, as said, after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
Thus, it is from the Catholic Church that the Protestants have a Bible at all.
And which, even if true, means what? That all must submit to the instruments an stewards of Holy Writ? Does the RC even consider what this logic leads to?
The church with the authority to determine the infallible word of God, must have the infallible authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, apart from the declarations of the Catholic church, we have absolutely no guarantee that what is in the Bible is the genuine word of God.
Which is more question-begging assertions. Upon what basis can it be claimed that an infallible authority is essential to know what is of God? Rather, the Scriptural fact is that if the NT church is valid, then it means that both men and writings of God were correctly discerned and established as being so without an infallible magisterium. For the Lord and the NT church abundantly appealed to OT men and writings which the Jews held as being authoritative Scripture, and followed men who were rejected by the historical magisterium, which according to Roman reasoning they should have submitted to!
Nor was the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility necessary for the OT magisterium to have authority, with dissent even being a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13)
For church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for Protestants to accept the Bible and yet reject the authority of the Catholic church which gave it to them.
Behold what manner of perverse Roman reasoning results from implicit faith in men who think of themselves above that which is written. (Contra 1Co. 4:6.) For the RC premise that an infallible magisterium is essential for souls to correctly know what is of God is false, as the church began because the men and writings of God had been held as such, and thus as being authoritative, before a church of imperial Roman imagined she possessed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and that this was essential for such recognition and authority.
And again, since the OT had authority of Israel, and were the the stewards of Divine revelation, and by which the NT church obtained the OT, then to be consistent with Roman reasoning they should have submitted to them rather than following itinerant preachers whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected.
And if ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was not essential for OT men and writings to be held as authoritative, then neither is this essential for NT writings, which complimentary and conflative writings were actually progressively recognized as being so, essentially in the light of their unique and enduring Divine qualities and attestation, as were men of God.
Therefore let us hear the conclusion of the matter, which is that by requiring submission to the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, then Rome has essentially nuked the NT church, as it began due to the veracity of Truth claims being established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, in authority over Israel!
In contrast, Truth claims being established upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and the allowance of dissent from those who claim (Rome) or who do sit in power, validates the Reformation in principal. And indeed, it is abundantly evidenced that tht word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)