From Ask a Catholic:
It is correct to say that only the statements in the Council which begin with, "If anyone says..." and end with "let him be anathema," are considered the formally infallible statements, in the canonical sense of the term. That is why they are called canons, since it is the rule of faith that everyone must follow without exception or objection.
From the Council of Trent
CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
FIRST DECREE
Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.
Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive 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, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
So it would seem that is consistent with you claim, as a faithful Catholic that the Canon of Scripture have been ruled on, and that the Catholic Church understands the ruling to be infallible dogma.
As an Anglican I note that this is some twenty years before the promulgation of the Thirty Nine Articles as we receive them - though we would never claim them to be infallible nor on a par with Holy Scripture. The first of the the articles in 1536 read "The binding authority of the Bible, the three ecumenical creeds and the first four ecumenical councils" though it gives us no guidance as to the canon, to which one must therefore presume that the Canon as received at Trent was what was meant. The Forty two articles of 1552 speak of Scripture, and the need to establish by scripture what must be required of a person to believe, however the canon itself is not spelled out. Given this was a more reformed part of the process, one may wonder if it included or excluded the deutero canonicals, and the evidence of silence must lead one to conclude they were probably included.
The Thirty Nine Articles of 1662, list the books of the Old Testament as canonical and of the DeuteroCanbonical texts we say
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
- The Third Book of Esdras
- The Fourth Book of Esdras
- The Book of Tobias
- The Book of Judith
- The rest of the Book of Esther
- The Book of Wisdom
- Jesus the Son of Sirach
- Baruch the Prophet
- The Song of the Three Children
- The Story of Susanna
- Of Bel and the Dragon
- The Prayer of Manasses
- The First Book of Maccabees
- The Second Book of Maccabees
The issues with the Deutero canonical texts for the Fathers of Anglicanism was the questions raised in that the Jews in establishing the Canon - somewhat after Carthage I suspect - did not include them, possibly because they did not have them in Hebrew, but only in the Greek of the Septuagint, and so they had some doubts about them. It was also recognised in these works there are a number of themes and threads which might be seen as different in nature to most of the work of the received Canon proper.
Anglicans as such did not dismiss the Deutero canonical texts, but received them without the same level of authority as the rest of the canon. Many will no doubt regard that as an Anglican each-way bet. At the same time readings from the deutero canon were retained in the lectionaries, and they were included in translations of the Scriptures including the King James Bible of 1611.
I have a feeling that they have been dispensed with two easily by some of the congregations of the reformation, given that the Septuagint was the text that the writers of the New Testament seem to have been most familiar with, and quite likely Jesus himself as well.
I am however uncomfortable with the universal declaration of any section of the Church that the decisions of a council they conduct is infallible. I would be more likely to see that in oecumenical councils of the whole church, and even there as an Anglican I would be unlikely to make that claim.
Article XXI
Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
So, having reflected and prayed about the matter, I am bound to say I cannot accept the view that the Council of Trent was infallible. However you should not take from that that I am determining to disagree with anything the Council has said, and specifically in relation to the canon I am very cognisant of the position, and I think my position would be close, but not a perfect match.
