Deuterocanonical doesn't mean "lesser." It is a sequential description. Also, those are not the only disputed books, which means you would have to throw out books in your 66 book Bible from establishing doctrine if you permit someone's "dispute" to neuter a book that is Scripture. Also, I think I know which part of Trent & the Vulgate you mean. If it's from the 4th session, it says that no one should reject use of the old vulgate for exposition, lectures, etc... That same session permits other translations as well when it says, "(this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible." That refers to future translations. In other words, the old vulgate was to be the officially used for expositions, lectures, etc... not that other translations were discouraged. It actually encouraged that future translations be "printed in the most correct manner possible."It seems to me that the most conservative approach would be to allow the reading of the Apocryphal books in the churches but to only use the undisputed books to establish doctrine. Even the common term in Roman Catholicism--deuterocanonical--implies that these books are not on the same level as the rest of the canon. The Council of Trent also said that the Latin Vulgate in use at the time of the Council must not be questioned or rejected. Nevermind the fact that there were many variations at the time from the edition produced by Jerome. And since that time there have been revisions of the Vulgate. So either Trent was in error or the Roman Catholic Church today is in error. The Roman Catholic Church also now allows translations that are not based on the Vulgate and has abandoned its anathemas against those who question the authenticity of the Johannine Comma (which was found in the Vulgate at the time of Trent but not in Jerome's Vulgate). I wouldn't want the text of my Bible subjected to the whims of some infallible council who decision could be overthrown by a council later on. I think it better to recognize that the Christian church as a whole has been able to discern which books are canonical throughout history.
Mr Polo said:Also, those are not the only disputed books, which means you would have to throw out books in your 66 book Bible from establishing doctrine if you permit someone's "dispute" to neuter a book that is Scripture.
There are disputed NT books as well such as Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation and I don't believe that these should be used to establish doctrine either.
Mr. Polo said:I understand you don't embrace the Catholic Magisterium, but I still must disagree with your mentality here. In Acts 15, when there was genuine dispute among legitimate elders on circumcision, they didn't just say "Well, we're not unanimous, forget about it." Rather the Spirit will sort out the truth among the Church. I think if you nix James and Jude or whatever from which you can discern doctrine on the basis that there has been dispute on those books, then I think you are quenching the Spirit. At the same time, I think that enables the devil who would use dispute in order to hinder the truth.
Again, I don't get this mentality of being discouraged by other people's twisting. Catholics choose to recognize that which is Scripture no matter who twists it. If you think Catholics twist the book of James, why in the world would that stop you from trying to learn if there is sound doctrine in there? Godspeed to you however you choose to approach Scripture.What teaching do you find in James or Jude that is so vital to the Christian faith that is not found in the rest of Scripture? I believe along with Luther that all of Christian doctrine can be found in the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, there are countless heretical groups who have gone astray by taking a disputed writing such as the Book of Revelation (which even now is not read during the lectionary readings in the Eastern Orthodox churches) and come up with all kinds of goofy ideas and then read those teachings into the rest of Scripture. But if as the historic liturgy itself suggests and all the beautiful Gospel processionals suggest we give pre-eminence to the Gospels we run into far less problems. Just as dispensationalists wrongly take the disputed Book of Revelation and use it as a lens for their interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures, so the Roman Catholic Church takes a wrong reading of the disputed book of James and uses it as the lens through which to read the Gospels and the letters of Paul. And they take descriptive narratives in the OT Apocrypha and use them as a means to establish prescriptive doctrine. I have absolutely no problem with the reading of the OT Apocrypha in the churches. We sing portions of them in the liturgy at my own church at certain times of the year. There is just danger in treating them the same way you would treat the Gospels or the letters of Paul. I don't see how any of that is quenching the Spirit. Given the contradictions between some of the different councils I would have to conclude that the Holy Spirit is quite confused if I made the claim that they were all led by the Holy Spirit.
Mr Polo said:Again, I don't get this mentality of being discouraged by other people's twisting. Catholics choose to recognize that which is Scripture no matter who twists it. If you think Catholics twist the book of James, why in the world would that stop you from trying to learn if there is sound doctrine in there? Godspeed to you however you choose to approach Scripture.
Im not being condesending at all. im just curious. i dont quite understand. i was always under the impression all books in the bible are important.
i read the NKJV and i am Catholic. I prefer it over the NASB and ESV.
i just dont understand how extreme Protestants can say "what gives Catholics the right to <insert common complaint here>. It makes me wonder "what gave Martin Luther the right to exclude books?
im not being mean, i just dont know how else to put it.
The Deuterocanonicals may provide insight into certain teachings and so I don't think that they should be thrown out entirely but I do think it is necessary to interpret them through the lens of the undisputed books. I think that even the canonical order provides some help in determining which books should interpret which. Among the church fathers the sermons and commentaries are great on the undisputed books but few and far between on the disputed books.
Mr. Polo said:So if I understand your position correctly, Jude, James, et al, are indeed the inspired word of God, but you don't believe we should derive any doctrinal truth from those books because other people don't think they are Scripture? Or are you saying some people's doubts cause you to not know if those books are God's inspired revelation to mankind, and therefore you will play it safe and not derive any doctrine from them? I am unclear as to whether or not you think any of the disputed books are indeed divine revelation.
Among the disputed writings, [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. [των αντιλεγομένων]"
My personal opinions about which of these disputed books should be considered canonical is irrelevant.
Mr. Polo said:You perhaps have seen in this thread what I think about picking and choosing certain ECFs as your rule on matters. And besides, all Eusebius said in that quote is that these books were known to have been disputed at some point.
Mr. Polo said:You'd have to vehemently deny the Trinity on the same basis that there were many ECFs who disputed it and even exiled Athanasius over the matter more than once. Jerome taught us that at one point the majority of bishops were Arian!
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. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.
Mr. Polo said:The early Church passed on a 27 book NT Canon. They obviously did not take that attitude. They passed on all 27, and can be seen teaching from "disputed" books after Eusebius (and quite a bit before). I repeat again from Acts 15, there was dispute over whether circumcision was necessary. In that council, did they say, "There is dispute. We shall not be able to identify the truth." No! The Spirit is able to guide the Church through dispute! And their decision did not anathematize their opponents who had a different opinion prior to the council.
This all means the "don't get doctrine from disputed books" rule is a rule that the early Church disputes!! Which means the conservative play would be to discard that rule!!
None of these claims are true.