The mistake of the Council of Trent

[Gary]

The Mistake of the Council of Trent

The "infallible" pronouncement by the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha is part of the inspired Word of God is unjustified for many reasons. It reveals how fallible an allegedly infallible statement can be, since it is historically unfounded, being a polemical overreaction, and entailing an arbitrary decision that involved a dogmatic exclusion.

• 1. Prophetically Unverified. The true test of canonicity is propheticity. There is no evidence that the apocryphal books were prophetic. They lack prophetic authorship, content, and confirmation.
  
  2. Historically Unfounded. The council’s pronouncement went against a continuous line of teaching, including noted Jewish and Christian fathers, such as Philo, Josephus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Jerome. Certainly, it is not based on any “unanimous consent of the Fathers†Roman Catholics claim for their dogma.
  
  3. Polemical Overreaction. The occasion of Trent’s infallible pronouncement on the Apocrypha was part of a polemical action against Luther, supporting teaching that he had attacked, such as prayers for the dead.
  
  4. Arbitrary Decision. Not all the Apocrypha was accepted at Trent. In fact, they arbitrarily accepted a book favoring their belief in prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees) and rejected one opposing such prayers (2 [4] Esdras; cf. 7:105). Thus, Trent’s acceptance of the Apocrypha was unfounded. There were fourteen books and yet they selected only eleven. On what grounds did they reject the three?
  
  5. Dogmatic Exclusion. In fact, the very history of this section of 2 (4) Esdras reveals the arbitrariness of Trent’s decision. It was written in Aramaic by an unknown Jewish author (c. a.d. 100) and circulated in Old Latin versions (c. a.d. 200). The Latin Vulgate printed it as an appendix to the New Testament (c. a.d. 400). It disappeared from Bibles until Protestants, beginning with Johann Haug (1726–42), began to print it in the Apocrypha based on Aramaic texts, since it was not in Latin manuscripts of the time. However, in 1874 a long section (seventy verses of chap. 7) was found by Robert Bently in a library in Amiens, France. Bruce Metzger noted: “It is probable that the lost section was deliberately cut out of an ancestor of most extant Latin Manuscripts, because of dogmatic reasons, for the passage contains an emphatic denial of the value of prayers for the dead.â€Â

In spite of the testimony of antiquity against them, in a.d. 1546, just twenty-nine years after Luther had posted his ninety-five theses, the Roman Catholic Church infallibly and irrevocably proclaimed that the apocryphal books were on the same level as Scripture, declaring: “The Synod . . . receives and venerates . . . all the books [including the Apocrypha] both of the Old and the New Testaments seeing that one God is the Author of both . . . as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost. . . . If anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church . . . let him be anathema.â€Â

:o :o How sad.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 171). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

you certainly have a lot of time on your hands Gary. I wish I had that much time!

 

[thessalonian]

My guess is he's got a scanner. You see very little original material out of gary that takes any kind of thought and time. Geisler's works are full of holes. The Council of Trent only affirmed what Flourence (a dogmatic council) said about the canon, which was consistent with what Pope Damasus and a couple of early synods said (hippo, carthage). Some disagreed but as usual, anyone who disagrees with the heirarchy is put on an infallible pedastal by protestants, no matter how many areas of theology they disagree with Protestants. Jerome was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? That would be funny. Jerome submitted to the Pope. It's quite clear who changed the canon.

 

[Gary]

you certainly have a lot of time on your hands Gary. I wish I had that much time!

It is worth it belovedwolfofgod. If only one Roman Catholic sees it... and reconsiders what they have been taught, it is worth it!

I have seen several ex-Roman Catholics come to true knowledge and a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, breaking away from the clutches of the Roman Catholic Church. That is enough for me!

 

[Gary]

..... Jerome was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? That would be funny. Jerome submitted to the Pope. It's quite clear who changed the canon.

LOL... Thessalonian at his best!



Let us see what Jerome thought of the canon.

"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." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

"we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst 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 are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, The Books of Samuel and Kings).

Still so sure about Jerome?

:D :D

 

[Heidi]

My guess is he's got a scanner. You see very little original material out of gary that takes any kind of thought and time. Geisler's works are full of holes. The Council of Trent only affirmed what Flourence (a dogmatic council) said about the canon, which was consistent with what Pope Damasus and a couple of early synods said (hippo, carthage). Some disagreed but as usual, anyone who disagrees with the heirarchy is put on an infallible pedastal by protestants, no matter how many areas of theology they disagree with Protestants. Jerome was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? That would be funny. Jerome submitted to the Pope. It's quite clear who changed the canon.

At least his is biblically based and yours is not. You contradict scripture at every turn. ;-)

 

[thessalonian]

Gary at his best with Jerome. You simply verified two things. YOu don't read my posts closely and exactly what I said you do with any church father who says things that a Protestant can fit in to his own thinking. Thanks for your post. Jerome did submit to the Pope and include the Apocrypha. Damasus did approve them as a part of the canon. And Jerome himself called, I believe it was Sirach, scripture later. You want me to look it up?

 

[thessalonian]

My guess is he's got a scanner. You see very little original material out of gary that takes any kind of thought and time. Geisler's works are full of holes. The Council of Trent only affirmed what Flourence (a dogmatic council) said about the canon, which was consistent with what Pope Damasus and a couple of early synods said (hippo, carthage). Some disagreed but as usual, anyone who disagrees with the heirarchy is put on an infallible pedastal by protestants, no matter how many areas of theology they disagree with Protestants. Jerome was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? That would be funny. Jerome submitted to the Pope. It's quite clear who changed the canon.

At least his is biblically based and yours is not. You contradict scripture at every turn. ;-)

Thanks for your input Heidi. It's deep and studied as always. :roll: Sarcasm out.

 

[Heidi]

My guess is he's got a scanner. You see very little original material out of gary that takes any kind of thought and time. Geisler's works are full of holes. The Council of Trent only affirmed what Flourence (a dogmatic council) said about the canon, which was consistent with what Pope Damasus and a couple of early synods said (hippo, carthage). Some disagreed but as usual, anyone who disagrees with the heirarchy is put on an infallible pedastal by protestants, no matter how many areas of theology they disagree with Protestants. Jerome was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? That would be funny. Jerome submitted to the Pope. It's quite clear who changed the canon.

At least his is biblically based and yours is not. You contradict scripture at every turn. ;-)

The from now on, please provide scripture exactly as it's written to support your beliefs instead of empty attacks. Your empty attacks make my statement true.

Thanks for your input Heidi. It's deep and studied as always. :roll: Sarcasm out.

 

[thessalonian]

:roll:

The from now on, please provide scripture exactly as it's written to support your beliefs instead of empty attacks. Your empty attacks make my statement true.

seems by your own definition your original post was an empty attack. Guess you proved yourself wrong. :-D

 

[Heidi]

:roll:

The from now on, please provide scripture exactly as it's written to support your beliefs instead of empty attacks. Your empty attacks make my statement true.

seems by your own definition your original post was an empty attack. Guess you proved yourself wrong. :-D

Considering that you don't provide scripture to back up your posts, then again, my post was a true statement. Now you can pretend that you use scripture to back up your posts, but all anyone has to do is look at them and see which one of us is telling the truth. ;-)

 

[bbas 64]

Good day, All

Yes I belive they did they left behind the best minds of the times for the sake of getting it done:

Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: Cardinal Seripando, Trans. The Rev. Frederic C. Eckhoff (St. Loius Mo.: B. Herder Book Co., 1947)

Pg 281...On April 5 the bishops of Castellamare, Fano, Bergamo, and Chiloggia had declared for the "similis." The first two were members of the commission to study prevalent abuses, the others were not. When the decree was being edited, besides these two, Ambrose Catharinus was present.64 As to exercising influence on Cervini, only Bertano and Catharinus are to be considered, to whom perhaps Seripando's name may be added. Although Seripando had expressly declared on April 5 that he was conforming to the majority, he remained fundamentally in favor of "similis" Did he restrain himself in the general congregation in order to labor more energetically with Cervini for his view? We can only raise the question, not answer it; but the question throws light on the unusual fact that a clause approved by the majority was changed in the draft of the decree.



In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse. He proposed the following wording for the section on traditions: "Quoniam sancta synodus scit, quamplura alia esse in ecclesia a Spiritu Sancto dictata, quae in sacris litteris non sunt prodita, propterea ilia quoque suscipit et veneratur."

Page 282
Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti.65 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,66 as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1.67 While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo,68 the Carmelite general,69 and the Bishop of Agde 70 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." 71 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.

Any one who holds that Jerome held to the unlimted canon inacted at Trent is just playing fast and lose with the history.

Ibid.. 270

Since the legates were not in agreement, they called a conference of the generals of the orders, in which Seripando also took part.10 But no more agreement was reached here than in the heated discussions in the general congregation. The resolution adopted on February 15, simply accepting the Decretum pro Jacobitis, suppressed the wishes of the minority. The discussion of the reasons for the decision was recommended to the individual zeal of the conciliar prelates.11

Cervini's view had been defeated, nor was he able to obtain consideration for a view submitted by Bertano and Seripando which had been mentioned in the same general congregation. We know of this opinion from a treatise composed by Seripando at his time.12 Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the proto canonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Machabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma.

 

[bbas 64]

Gary at his best with Jerome. You simply verified two things. YOu don't read my posts closely and exactly what I said you do with any church father who says things that a Protestant can fit in to his own thinking. Thanks for your post. Jerome did submit to the Pope and include the Apocrypha.

Good day, Thess

I agree he did include them as did Luther, including them means little in the discussion, fact is he said they were not viewed by the church to be used for Doctrine, the RCC clearly now disagrees with the church of Jerome's and Luther's times on this issue.



[quote:2cdc6] Damasus did approve them as a part of the canon. And Jerome himself called, I believe it was Sirach, scripture later. You want me to look it up?

[/quote:2cdc6]

Yes, if you would be so kind. Just because he called it Scripture does not mean much.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[TruthMiner]

Well if they made a mistake, the church from the earliest times was wrong too since those books were always in the Bibles since a Bible was first canonized, and even before.