Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (22 page)

The Church receives these books as true, and venerates
them as useful, moral treatises, though, in the discussion of those things
which are of faith, not conclusive in argument…Wherefore, perhaps, they have
such authority as have the sayings of holy doctors approved by the Church.
[584]

Antoninus claims that his opinion comes from St. Thomas
Aquinas, but as we have seen in our survey, this is not the case. Instead,
Antoninus’ views were dependent upon Jerome.
[585]

Denis of Chartreux (1471)

Denis of Chartreux believed that the Church received the
Deuterocanon but not as canonical writings.
[586]

Franciscus Ximenes de Cisneros (1436–1517)

Another well-known Catholic name touted by anti-Catholics is
Franciscus Ximenes de Cisneros, better known simply as Cardinal Ximenes, whose
position in high office earned him a small fortune near the end of his life.
The Cardinal used his wealth to found a school for the Arts and Sciences and
had it built in an old Roman town called Complutum. Ximenes’ endowments enabled
this upstart university to become well known; by the end of its first year, it
had nearly three thousand students.
[587]
The crowning achievement of Ximenes’ career was the
publication of a polyglot bible. A polyglot bible is formatted in such a way as
to provide various texts and translations in parallel columns
.
Ximenes
’
Complutensian Polyglot (Biblia
Computensia
as it became known)
included the text of the
Latin Vulgate
, surrounded by the Greek
Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, and the Hebrew
Masoretic Text.

Ximenes’ role in the making of the Polyglot was that
of general supervisor. His main contribution was to secure Hebrew manuscripts
for use in it. Under him, a host of editors put the Polyglot together,
including three Hebraists who were converts from Judaism: Alphonso of Alcala,
Paul Coronel of Salamanca, and Alphonso de Zamora.
[588]

The Polyglot includes the Deuterocanon with the following
critical remarks:

The books… which are without the Canon, which the
Church receives rather for the edification of the people than the establishment
of ecclesiastical doctrines are only given in Greek, but in a double
translation.
[589]

It is likely that Ximenes may have adopted Jerome’s views on
Hebrew Verity because he himself references, in two of the prefaces, the
Masoretic Text as being the truth (
veritas
).
[590]
Be that as it may, Jerome’s influence on the
Polyglot is demonstrated without any doubt by the inclusion of several of his
prefaces.

Erasmus (1466–1536)

Erasmus is perhaps the best known figure in the humanist movement
of Luther’s day. Erasmus also attempted to reconcile Church usage with Jerome.
The three quotes below are samples of how Erasmus wrestled with these views:

For the rest…it is not yet agreed in what spirit the
Church now holds in public use books which the ancients with great consent
reckoned among the Apocrypha. Whatever the authority of the Church has approved
I embrace simply as a Christian man ought to do…Yet it is of great moment to
know in what spirit the Church approves anything. For allowing that it assigns
equal authority of the Hebrew Canon and the Four Gospels, it assuredly does not
with Judith, Tobit and Wisdom to have the same weight as the Pentateuch.
[591]

After enumerating the short canon minus Esther, Erasmus
writes:

…[T]hat Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus [Sir], Tobit, Judith,
Esther, and the Additions of Daniel have been received into ecclesiastical use.
Whether, however, the Church receives them as possessing the same authority as
the others the spirit of the Church must know.
[592]

That it is not unreasonable to establish different
degrees of authority among the Holy Books, as St. Augustine has done. The books
of the first rank are those concerning which there has never existed a doubt
with the ancients. Certainly, Isaiah has more weight than Judith.
[593]

Erasmus is puzzled as to the exact status of the
Deuterocanon. He confuses the utility of Scripture with its inspiration. For
example, the Book of Genesis and the Book of Esther are both inspired and
authoritative, but they are not equally useful in confirming doctrine. Had
Erasmus made such a distinction, it might very well have served to clear up his
muddled thinking on the canon.

Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) (1469–1534)

Rarely does an anti-Catholic work fail to mention Thomas de
Vio, better known as Cardinal Cajetan. Cajetan was a papal legate to Germany
and an official intermediary between Martin Luther and Rome. He was tapped for
the role as Legate because he was one of the finest and strictest Thomistic
scholars of his day.
[594]
Although Cajetan’s study of St. Thomas made him a suitable candidate to
dialogue with Martin Luther over his theological innovations, it was also a
deadly weakness. So singular was Cajetan’s focus on Thomas Aquinas that he
lacked the flexibility to grapple with the unorthodox complexities of Luther’s
theology. This inflexibility can be seen in Cajetan’s first meeting with the Reformer.
Catholic historian Warren Carroll recounts:

In explaining why these propositions [Luther’s views
on Indulgences and the Sacraments] were heretical, Cajetan, a great authority
on St. Thomas Aquinas, relied on the Angelic Doctor, whom Luther despised, for
much of his argumentation…[Cajetan] was so incensed by Luther’s provocative
manner and diatribes against St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom he was devoted, that
most uncharacteristically he began shouting at him. Luther replied even more
loudly (the man did not live who could out shout Martin Luther) and finally
Cajetan dismissed him with: ‘Go, and do not return unless you are ready to
recant!’
[595]

Aquinas was
the
last word in Cajetan’s theology. When
it came to biblical studies, however, Jerome was his master, even to the point
of absurdity. Cajetan’s devotion to these two great theologians is admirable,
but it should have had limits. No theologian, however great and knowledgeable,
is immune from error. Even the two great Doctors of the Church, Jerome and
Aquinas, occasionally made mistakes. They are subject to correction. Cajetan’s
unbalanced devotion to Jerome can be seen in his rather bizarre statements in
his
Commentary on the Book of Esther:

The Church receives such books [the Deuterocanon],
permitting the faithful to read them; the Church also reads them in her
offices, on account of the many devout things which they contain. But the
Church obliges no one necessarily to believe what is contained therein, which
is the case with the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus [Sir], Maccabees, Judith,
and Tobit. For though these books are received by Christians, and proof derived
from them may, in some way or other, have weight, because the Church retains
those books; yet they are not effectual for proving those things which are in
doubt, against heretics or Jews. We here terminate our commentaries (on the
books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees), which are reckoned by Jerome
without the canonical books, and are placed among the apocrypha, together with
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as appears in his ‘Prologus Galeatus” [Helmeted
Prologue]. Nor should you be disturbed, O novice, if you should anywhere find
those books reckoned among the canonical books, either in the holy councils, or
in the holy doctors.
For the words of the councils, as well as of
the doctors, are to be submitted to the correction of Jerome; and according to
his judgment to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, those books (and if
there be any similar ones in the Canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that
is, they are not those which are given as a rule for the confirmation of the
faith.
They may, however, be called canonical (that is, given as a rule) for
the edification of the faithful; since [they are] received and authorized
in the Canon of the Bible for this purpose.
[596]

In one paragraph, Cajetan places Jerome above every pope,
every local or Ecumenical council, and every Christian teacher. He admits that
the Church receives the Deuterocanon and calls it canonical, and he admits that
the Deuterocanon does carry some weight in doctrinal proofs, albeit not enough
to persuade heretics and Jews.
[597]
The most fascinating aspect of this commentary is to see the
lengths to which this otherwise sober theologian will go to reconcile Jerome
with the official Church. Even Cajetan’s own language becomes twisted when he
writes that the Deuterocanon is in the “Canon of the Bible,” but later he
claims that it is “not canonical.”  Did Cajetan really mean to make a
distinction between canonical-canonical books and canonical non-canonical
books? The confusion in the Cajetan’s otherwise clear thinking serves to
illustrate how the discussion of the canon had degraded by the time of the
Protestant Reformation.

The Synod of Sens (1528)

The local council of Sens met to reaffirm the Faith that was
being denied by Protestants. They held that the
Decree of Pope Gelasius
,
the
Third Council of Carthage,
and
Pope Innocent I
had already
settled the question of the canon, so they decreed that anyone who did not
accept these ancient teachings was to be denounced as a heretic and schismatic.
[598]
Sens’ decree,
however, had little effect on the maelstrom of opinions and viewpoints of this
age. Consequently, the need for a General Council appeared all too obvious.
Unfortunately, because political, social, and logistical difficulties, that
General Council would not be convened until December of 1545.

The Council of Trent (February 11, 1546)

The Council of Trent decided early on to address questions
of Scripture and Sacred Tradition because both were prerequisites to all
discussions of doctrine.
[599]
 
It is Trent’s action in the defining of the canon which lies at the heart of
the Catholic/Protestant controversy. Did the Council of Trent
add
books
to the Bible, or did Protestants
remove
them?

To answer this question, researchers should to start with
the decree itself. On April 8, 1546, the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent
issued a Dogmatic Decree titled
The Sacred Books and the Traditions of the
Apostles.
It touched upon doctrine (e.g. the canon) and upon discipline as
well (e.g. the acceptance of the
Latin Vulgate
). The Council Fathers
declared:

The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Synod of
Trent…following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and holds in
veneration with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of
the Old and of the New Testament, since one God is the author of both, and also
the traditions themselves, those that appertain both to faith and to morals, as
having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy
Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And so
that no doubt may arise in anyone’s mind as to which are the books that are
accepted by this Synod, it has decreed that a list of the Sacred books be added
to this decree.

Books of the Old Testament: [lists the books of the
larger canon].

Books of the New Testament [lists the books of the New
Testament]. If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and
canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the
Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition,
and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid
traditions 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.
[600]

How did the Council Fathers arrive at this canon? Was it
simply a reactionary move against the Protestants? The deliberations of the
Council provide the key that unlocks the answer.
[601]

Deliberations of the Council of Trent

The Council held three official sessions before issuing its
decree on the canon. The First Session officially opened the Council; the
Second laid down various points of procedure and issued the statement of Faith
called the
Symbolum Fidei
.
[602]
The third session adopted a plan to divide the body into
three Particular Congregations for the purpose of readying questions to be
discussed during the meeting of the General Congregations (in which all the
bishops would participate).

The first General Congregation (February 8) discussed
whether a decree on the canon of Scripture was actually needed; after all,
Cardinal Pacheco argued, the Church Fathers and previous councils had already
addressed the issue. It was suggested that Trent merely collect and confirm
these decrees without any additional deliberation. This idea won the approval
of several of the council members.
[603]
Others considered any discussion of the canon superfluous,
being under the impression that Lutherans and Catholics held similar views on
the topic. The majority, however, wished to consider the issue and voted to do
so.

In the First Particular Congregation (February 11), it was
asked if the canon of Scripture ought to be received as “pure and simple” (
pure
et simpliciter
), or whether there should be some preliminary discussion of
the objections raised against it; “not as if the question itself were in doubt,
but in order that the Synod should be able to give an account of itself to any
believer whatsoever.”
[604]
It was decided “to receive the books simply and entirely as the Church had done
in other councils, and especially in the Council of Florence.”
[605]
That night, the
Cardinal Legates wrote that all three Particular Congregations had agreed on
the acceptance of the Books of Scripture pure and simple, “…as was done by many
of the ancient Fathers, by the third Provincial Council of Carthage, by that of
Pope Gelasius, by Innocent I, and lastly by the Council of Florence.”
[606]
The letter also
proposed that a group of theologians should be brought together, outside of the
council, to answer objections raised against certain books. Two Council
Fathers, Pietro Bertano and Girolamo Seripando, proposed that a distinction be
made between the Deuterocanon and the Protocanon, as Jerome had called for in
the
Prologus Galeatus.
This proposal was offered to the Congregation, but
failed to win acceptance.
[607]
Breen notes: