Hezekiah said:
Then St. Jerome must have been a Reformer:
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome, Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
Hardly.
First, you need to consider his own background behind the reasoning of his insistence. He interpreted the Hebrew into the Latin in writing the "Vulgate". Of course he was biased that the Word of God could only be written in Hebrew to the Jews. However, his reasoning was faulty, first, because some of the Deuterocanonicals WERE written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and secondly, God can speak in what ever language He deems appropriate (like Greek in the NT...)
Second, you need to consider that one opinion does not make the decision faulty. Shall we now remove the Book of Revelation because other Catholics DISAGREED with the idea of its inclusion in the NT AFTER Hippo??? The Church is the Body of Christ, not one man, not the Pope, not even St. Jerome's opinion... Thus Church has spoken.
Hezekiah said:
Origen must also have been Schismatic when he referenced the Apocryphal texts:
LOL! Origen said a lot...
"
But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615
Sirach is Sacred Scripture. A Deuterocanonical!!!
[i
][A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude[/i]." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.
"It is written" is, in the vast majority of times by the Fathers, refering to Scriptures. The following quote makes it clear that Tobit is also Sacred Scriptures (along with Judith).
Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IV:391.
But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230),in ANF, IV:270
OH, my favorite. How wrong Luther was... MACCABEES is Scriptures...
[T]he Wisdom of Solomon, a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by all. In that book, however, we find written as follows: "For thy almighty hand, that made the world out of shapeless matter, wanted not means to send among them a multitude of bears and fierce lions.' [Wisdom 11:17] Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230), in ANF, IV:270.
And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, "If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing " or "If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 4 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IX:427.
Twice, Origen notes that SOME JEWS do not consider Wisdom inspired, but Origen does, along with the Church. Note the following discussion...
Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets."[2] In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389
Thus, Origen speaks of the validity and the true Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel. He says that Christians don’t have to doubt its veracity.
He claims the Jews just concealed and removed it from their Scriptures for the sake of protecting their elders. (LIKE THE REFORMERS...) The Church does not participate in this concealment, as Origen indicates, as it is true Scripture.
And finally, Origen discusses with a man named Afrinacus who makes "Reformer statements" about the books of the Septuagint that are not in the Palestinian canon...
"
In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, 'Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.' Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community." Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:387
Origen notes that the Scriptures that are in the Church are different from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, he speaks approvingly of the Septuagint, which contains all the Deuterocanonical books.
Origen defends the Septaugint, and separately defends nearly all the individual books of the OT Deuterocanonicals. It is the Reformers who want to re-install the Jewish mindset upon the Christian Churches by "removing the ancient landmarks set up"
Regards
