• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Addressing the status of the Apocrypha pre Trent

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,017
1,785
60
New England
✟606,187.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good day,

As not to hi-jack the other thread figure I should do some follow up. As I need to give some historical back round to a quote I used from Cardinal Catjetan. As I see it germaine to the historical question that was being addressed.


In addressing the status of the Apocrypha and it’s inclusion with in the Tome of books that make up a Bible at any given time in history. I have posted the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498 which was a commentary that was used for many years with in the church, and came about to reflect the understanding of many Scholars and the church in the Middle Ages. The important ace of the work can not be over looked as noted.

The original Glossa ordinaria began as a marginal gloss on the Bible and was attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century.





Now on to the status of the Apocrypha with in published Bibles before the 16 th century.


Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514-1517).




Metzger Notes;



Here one can see that this edition was a printed edition of the Hebrew texts.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05286a.htm


In this printing the Apocrypha was added to the back of the book by the Hebrew editors. Tradition tells us that the original printing of 200 of 600 had 2 black pages that separated the writings “apocrypha” from the others. In addition to this Cardinal Catjetan wrote the introduction for the separation of the canon from the apocrypha his view with regards to this issue is well known. In his commentaries which were dedicated to the Pope.



Though the Apocrypha is included in the edition of the Bible, it is clear that there is a clear separation, by the editors and the introduction by Catjetan that would be in line with the historical view pre Trent.

I hope this is helpful in rounding out some more information on the question.

Peace to u,



Bill
 

De_Maria

Member
Oct 5, 2017
10
5
68
Houston, TX
✟23,860.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Good day,

And to you.

 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,017
1,785
60
New England
✟606,187.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And to you.

Good day, De_Maria




Great questions,

Yes I am very familiar with it, I would remind you that the Great Cardinal is pre-Trent so it may in fact be an idea that is foreign to him. So reading you now understanding of the church of romes teaching (codified at Trent) back into history is not historically fair, and quite dishonest.

Yes I am historically aware that there were councils some local some not that had stated such a canon. I suppose you have a need (because the chuch of rome told you the need exists), and thus you would see them as authoritative on the issue … which council works for you.


It is not a historical stretch to say the Cardinal knew of them as well, but says they all fall under correct to Jerome:


For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome



Seeing this is a historical issue as I presented there are a few logical conclusions that can be drawn here, and many questions that require your attention.

Clearly you and the Cardinal would disagree, and the historical realties may account for this IE.. 1. the chuch in rome is telling you x and you believe them, but you could be in error by doing so.

2. You could say that the Cardinal here is in error possible I agree historically unlikely.

What do you attribute this disconnect? Do you have any objective historical data to base it on. Remember it is an historical question, not a question of the validity of what the church of rome teaches about itself.


In Him,



Bill
 
Upvote 0

De_Maria

Member
Oct 5, 2017
10
5
68
Houston, TX
✟23,860.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Good day, De_Maria

You too, Bill.


What do you mean by that? The Council of Florence was an ecumenical Council which infallibly defined the inspired books of the Bible.


Look up the Council of Florence. It is an ecumenical Council. Thus, the definitions of that Council, are infallible.

It is not a historical stretch to say the Cardinal knew of them as well, but says they all fall under correct to Jerome:

1. St. Jerome was also a Bishop. He does not pass the requirements for infallible Teaching.
2. St. Jerome changed his mind about the deuterocanon. The proof is that he included the deuterocanon in his Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Seeing this is a historical issue as I presented there are a few logical conclusions that can be drawn here, and many questions that require your attention.

Ask away. The fact is you've got your facts twisted. The historical fact is that the deuterocanon were always considered inspired books by the one entity that matters to Catholics. Jesus Christ, God almighty. And it is because He used the Septuagint, that the Catholic Church has always honored those books.

Clearly you and the Cardinal would disagree,

I doubt it. The Cardinal was a good Catholic. As such, he would have fallen in line to Catholic Teaching the way that St. Jerome did before him.

and the historical realties may account for this IE.. 1. the chuch in rome is telling you x and you believe them, but you could be in error by doing so.

On the contrary, the Scripture says:

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

And again:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Thus, since Scripture tells me to be wary of my own understanding and that I can rely completely upon the Teaching of the Church, that is the action that I take. I rely completely upon the Church that Jesus Christ established. And that is historically proven to be the Catholic Church.

2. You could say that the Cardinal here is in error possible I agree historically unlikely.

On the contrary, the Cardinal is goes against the historical Teaching of the Catholic Church and that is proven.

What do you attribute this disconnect? Do you have any objective historical data to base it on.

Sure do. I already provided the documents of the infallible Council of Florence. Here is the quote from St. Jerome to show that he changed his mind about the deuterocanon. In fact, in this explanation, St. Jerome does not say that he changed his mind, but that anti-Catholics misunderstood his explanation.

But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. St. Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, Book 2:33, 402 AD, Schaff, NPNF 2, Vol. 3, p. 517.

Remember it is an historical question, not a question of the validity of what the church of rome teaches about itself.

Both are on the Church's side. Her testimony and Teachings are the standard of orthodoxy. Her testimony and Teachings are the historical Teachings of Christianity.

May we all remain, in Him,

De Maria
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,174
13,952
73
✟417,640.00
Faith
Non-Denom

The Council of Florence accomplished exactly nothing, other than to provide a footnote in Catholic history which is conveniently used to bash Orthodox Christians and other non-Catholics. Council of Florence - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,017
1,785
60
New England
✟606,187.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Good day, De_Maria

This thread is a continuation of another thread so I am sorry to be short.

Historically Jerome gives us the view of the church.. historically it is consistent:


Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

It is clear that you and Cardinal view councils and even Jerome a bit differently... please do understand historically I find him a bit more convincing than you. I understand you currently disagree with him, but I find nothing challenging his views on this issue at the time the Gloss was published. If you have any thing I would be happy to review it.

In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0