onel0126
Bead mumbler
and finally......
In fact, since 382 only one council or pope had appeared to deny the canonicity of an Old Testament deuterocanonical book. Gregory the Great, writing in his Morals on the book of Job around 600, said of 1 Maccabees, "We are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus, Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down the elephant but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc 6:46). This was not a formal universal teaching to the faithful; rather, it was private theological commentary on the book of Job. Such a teaching is not a statement invoking papal authority, nor is it subject to or preserved by the charism of papal infallibility.
Further, consider the ramifications if the authority of the Body of Christ since 382 is wrong. If Trent's Sacrasancta decree incorrectly added Old Testament deuterocanonical books, how do we know it correctly defined the New Testament canon? After all, the arguments against the New Testament books are identical to those against the Old: Jewish scholars rejected New Testament writings, and Trent added them to Scripture to support flawed theology. Luther made an argument similar to this when he attacked Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and 2 Peter, and he seriously considered "throwing Jimmy [the epistle of James] into the fire" because it contradicted his faith-alone theology. Standing in judgment of Scripture, Luther called James "an epistle full of straw," while regarding all five of these books as quasi-canonical. Interestingly, Luther did not completely discard the deuterocanonical Old Testament books he attacked, he merely relegated them to an appendix between the Old and New Testaments. For three hundred years, many Protestant translations retained this appendix because the books were recognized as useful for moral instruction. Indeed, the Protestant kings of England imposed the death penalty on anyone who omitted the deuterocanonical appendix. The books were discarded completely only as late as 1827, by the British and Foreign Bible Society.
Supposedly, Jewish authority is accepted for Old Testament definition but rejected for New because Jewish scholars who rejected Christ could know nothing about the New Testament, while they knew the Old Testament because they lived it. This falsely separates the two Testaments of Scripture. Since the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, while the Old is fulfilled in the New, the Old Testament is just as permeated with Christ as is the New. Jewish scholars who rejected Christ rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus could not properly recognize either Old or New Testament Scripture.
Luther claimed to accept the Hebrew canon only because the Jews knew better than anyone what books constituted the Old Testament. Yet Luther's sermons showed little respect for Jewish theological opinion in other areas or for Jews in general. He ignored Old Testament Midrash commentaries or targums. Though the Jews have long prayed Q'addish, an eleven-month prayer of purification for the recently deceased, he rejected purgatory, claiming his newly-defined canon had no prayers for the dead. He ignored the fact that all first-century Jews accepted the Septuagint. He ignored the fact that the non-Christian Jews upon whose opinion he relied for Old Testament canonicity rejected the entire New Testament. In short, Martin Luther pretended to rely on the authority of Jewish Scripture scholars, the same Jews upon whom he poured verbal vitriol from the pulpit, so he could subvert the authority of the Body of Christ. If the ability or authority to determine the canon of Scripture rests in the individual Christian, upon what grounds could Marcion-who claimed to be led by God in using a severely mangled canon to deny Christ's humanity-be fought? According to Matthew 18:17, the Church has final authority to settle disputes between Christians. Certainly the decision concerning what is truly God's word is within her authority.
In fact, since 382 only one council or pope had appeared to deny the canonicity of an Old Testament deuterocanonical book. Gregory the Great, writing in his Morals on the book of Job around 600, said of 1 Maccabees, "We are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus, Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down the elephant but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc 6:46). This was not a formal universal teaching to the faithful; rather, it was private theological commentary on the book of Job. Such a teaching is not a statement invoking papal authority, nor is it subject to or preserved by the charism of papal infallibility.
Further, consider the ramifications if the authority of the Body of Christ since 382 is wrong. If Trent's Sacrasancta decree incorrectly added Old Testament deuterocanonical books, how do we know it correctly defined the New Testament canon? After all, the arguments against the New Testament books are identical to those against the Old: Jewish scholars rejected New Testament writings, and Trent added them to Scripture to support flawed theology. Luther made an argument similar to this when he attacked Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and 2 Peter, and he seriously considered "throwing Jimmy [the epistle of James] into the fire" because it contradicted his faith-alone theology. Standing in judgment of Scripture, Luther called James "an epistle full of straw," while regarding all five of these books as quasi-canonical. Interestingly, Luther did not completely discard the deuterocanonical Old Testament books he attacked, he merely relegated them to an appendix between the Old and New Testaments. For three hundred years, many Protestant translations retained this appendix because the books were recognized as useful for moral instruction. Indeed, the Protestant kings of England imposed the death penalty on anyone who omitted the deuterocanonical appendix. The books were discarded completely only as late as 1827, by the British and Foreign Bible Society.
Supposedly, Jewish authority is accepted for Old Testament definition but rejected for New because Jewish scholars who rejected Christ could know nothing about the New Testament, while they knew the Old Testament because they lived it. This falsely separates the two Testaments of Scripture. Since the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, while the Old is fulfilled in the New, the Old Testament is just as permeated with Christ as is the New. Jewish scholars who rejected Christ rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus could not properly recognize either Old or New Testament Scripture.
Luther claimed to accept the Hebrew canon only because the Jews knew better than anyone what books constituted the Old Testament. Yet Luther's sermons showed little respect for Jewish theological opinion in other areas or for Jews in general. He ignored Old Testament Midrash commentaries or targums. Though the Jews have long prayed Q'addish, an eleven-month prayer of purification for the recently deceased, he rejected purgatory, claiming his newly-defined canon had no prayers for the dead. He ignored the fact that all first-century Jews accepted the Septuagint. He ignored the fact that the non-Christian Jews upon whose opinion he relied for Old Testament canonicity rejected the entire New Testament. In short, Martin Luther pretended to rely on the authority of Jewish Scripture scholars, the same Jews upon whom he poured verbal vitriol from the pulpit, so he could subvert the authority of the Body of Christ. If the ability or authority to determine the canon of Scripture rests in the individual Christian, upon what grounds could Marcion-who claimed to be led by God in using a severely mangled canon to deny Christ's humanity-be fought? According to Matthew 18:17, the Church has final authority to settle disputes between Christians. Certainly the decision concerning what is truly God's word is within her authority.
