Conciliar Conundrum
by Timothy F.
Kauffman
It is an oft-repeated
charge against the Roman Catholic Church that she
added to the Bible the seven deuterocanonical books
of the apocrypha at the Council of Trent in the 16th
century. To Protestants, this has always been held
forth as a clear violation of Revelation 22:18, "For
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of
the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto
these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that
are written in this book." A Roman apologetics
ministry, Catholic Answers, founded by Karl
Keating, has answered this criticism in the form of
a tract which begins by asking the question: "Is
it true that at Trent the Church added the seven deuterocanonical
books (Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom,
Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible?" The
tract responds in the negative, which is not surprising,
but the explanation is: "The Council of Trent
(1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church
had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and
New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic
canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later,
at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage
(397, 419), the Church again defined the same list
of books as inspired. The canons of the Old and New
Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the Councils
of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (though
the books were not enumerated individually) by the
later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence
(1438-1445)."
To this explanation, Catholic
Answers adds the further charge that it was the
Protestant Reformers, and not the Roman Church, who
committed the gross violation of Revelation 22, and
that not of verse 18, but of 19, which commands that
we not remove anything from the Scriptures. From the
Catholic Answers tract: "Although the Council
of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation
of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical
books plus portions of Daniel and Esther, was the
first infallible conciliar listing of each individual
book, it certainly did not add those books to the
canon."
According to Catholic Answers
and its staff, the Council of Trent was indeed the
first Ecumenical Council to list infallibly the whole
canon of the Bible. This means that the first time
Rome ever compiled an infallible listing of the Scriptures
which included the Apocrypha was a full 1500 years
after the crucifixion. Their argument for canonicity
of the Apocrypha makes little of the fact that the
many ante-Tridentine councils which looked favorably
on the Deuterocanon were merely regional (not ecumenical)
councils and did not in fact represent the mind of
the whole Church. On this issue Keating writes, "the
Reformers dropped from the Bible books that had been
in common use for centuries."(Keating, Catholicism
and Fundamentalism, pg. 46, emphasis added.)
While "common use" is not the equivalent
of "infallible conciliar decree of canonicity,"
Keating acts as if it were; he even goes so far as
to say that "the Church"--albeit without
an infallible decree--"had long taught"
that the deuterocanon was Scripture. Let us grant
to Keating his liberal use of terms and see if it
accomplishes for him what he hopes it will. Passing
off "common use" as "canonicity,"
and asserting that the conclusions of the early regional
councils were "what the Church had long taught"
is an easy way to sidestep the charge of adding to
the Scriptures, but as we shall see, it gets Keating
in trouble when applied generally as it is here in
the particular.
Karl Keating's book, Catholicism
and Fundamentalism: The Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible
Christians' begins immediately with an attempt
to dismantle the scholarship of Dr. Loraine Boettner,
author of the exposé of Roman doctrine and
practice, Roman Catholicism. Boettner's book
is called by Keating, "the Anti-Catholic Sourcebook,"
and "the Bible of Anti-Catholics." One of
Keating's charges against Boettner, remarkably, is
that he attributes to the whole Catholic Church what
was promulgated by a merely regional council. In Roman
Catholicism, Boettner charged that in 1229, the
"Bible [was] forbidden to laymen, [and] placed
on the Index of Forbidden Books." (see "Catholic
Corner," this issue) And though Boettner erred
in the name of the council which took place
in that year, he was absolutely correct as to the
date and the object of prohibition.
Keating, though critical of Boettner here, instead
of disproving Boettner's allegations, actually concedes
that in fact the Council of Toulouse (and not Valencia,
as Boettner asserted) in 1229 forbade laymen to have
access to the Bible, and then begins to defend that
prohibition. Says Keating, "But the Albigensians
were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral
system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the
use of the Bible until the heresy was ended. ...Their
action was a local one, and when the Albigensian
problem disappeared, so did the force of their order,
which never affected more than southern France.
This is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of
the Bible that Boettner ...would like to see but that
never existed."(Keating, pp. 45-6, emphasis added).
We note how quickly Keating retreats
for cover by pointing out the limited authority held
by the Council at Toulouse. Though a Catholic council
prohibited the Bible to laymen, Keating asserts, it
was a regional council, and not an ecumenical one,
so the action of the council cannot be attributed
to the whole Church. Before we discuss Keating's selective
application of decrees from regional councils, let
us consider the degree to which the Bible actually
was prohibited in Europe by Catholic councils which
were not ecumenical:
-
A Manual
of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church,
by Landon, informs us on the Synod of Toulouse:
"Canon 14: Forbids the laity to have in their
possession any copy of the books of the Old and
New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions
of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the
Hours of the Blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids
these works in the vulgar tongue." (A
Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church,
(Rev. Edward Landon. M.A., 1909, Edinburgh, v2,
pp. 171-2))
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia
confirms this and adds two more synods: "During
the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far
more numerous than in ancient times. ...In this
period, also, the first decrees about the reading
of the translations of the Bible were called forth
by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigenses.
What these decrees (e.g. of the synods of Toulouse
in 1229, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed
at was the restriction of Bible reading in the
vernacular. A general prohibition was never in
existence."(The Catholic Encyclopedia,
(v3, pg. 520))
- A History of the Inquistion of the Middle
Ages states, "Allusion has already been
made to the burning of Romance versions of the Scriptures
by Jayme I of Aragon and to the commands of the
Council of Narbonne, in 1229, against the possession
of any portion of Holy Writ by laymen." (Henry
Lea, (v1, pg. 554))
Since Boettner only addressed the
decree of one council in Roman Catholicism, Keating
only deals with that one, but we can easily guess
his position on these other councils. Had Boettner
dealt with these other conciliar prohibitions, no
doubt Keating's response would be similar to that
described above. Following Keating's logic regarding
Toulouse, we extrapolate his position thusly: "But
the people of (Spain/England/France) were twisting
the Bible to support an error. So the bishops at (Tarragona/Oxford/Narbonne)
restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was
ended. ...Their action was a local one, and when the
heresy disappeared, so did the force of their order,
which never affected more than (Spain/England/France).
This is hardly the across-the-board prohibition of
the Bible that Boettner ...would like to see but that
never existed."
We agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia
when it states that "a general prohibition [against
the Scriptures] was never in existence." However,
we also note that a general proclamation of the canonicity
of the Apocrypha was never in existence either, at
least until the mid-16th century. This brings us back
to Catholic Answers' surprising defense of
the Apocrypha. We note with interest that Catholic
Answers marshalls the meager support of regional
councils (Rome, Hippo & Carthage) in order to
prove the Catholic Church's historical support of
the Apocrypha, but when Boettner cites regional councils
to demonstrate that Rome officially withheld Scriptures
from the people, Keating lambasts him for such naïvté
and poor scholarship! We say that Rome cannot have
it both ways.
We also say with David that the only
cure to spiritual ignorance is the Word itself: "The
law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the
simple. The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing
the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure,
enlightening the eyes." (Psalms 19:7-8) What
a shame that Keating openly defends the prohibition
of Scripture and the restricted "use of the Bible
until the heresy was ended," when the Scriptures
clearly teach that the food for the simple is the
Word of God that by reading it, they may become wise.
We say, as Keating ought to concede as well, "The
Councils of (Rome/Hippo/Carthage) supported the canonicity
of the Apocrypha, but their action was a local
one which never affected more than (Italy/Northern
Africa). This is hardly the across-the-board
recognition of Apocryphal canonicity that Keating
would like to see but that never existed." |
