Council of Trent of 1545

[AngelofJesus]

Protestants claim this to be the point where our Deutrocannonical books were put in our "Catholic bible" so we can support doctrines that were not found in the protocannonical. I've always thought that it was decided around the 4th century that the present bible is the one by the Pope at the time in coundil with St. Jerome.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' date='Nov 12 2004, 04:06 PM']Protestants claim this to be the point where our Deutrocannonical books were put in our "Catholic bible" so we can support doctrines that were not found in the protocannonical.  I've always thought that it was decided around the 4th century that the present bible is the one by the Pope at the time in coundil with St. Jerome.[/quote]
I wrote the following brief essay about 2 months ago, but it answers your question, so here it is again:

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 16 2004, 04:41 AM'][quote name='_bc' date='Sep 16 2004, 04:03 AM']
I'm debating some protestants and some agnostics who claim that the deuterocanonical books are not inspired and were not part of the original canon. I've already pointed out to them that they were included in the first Vulgata translation by St. Jerome at the request of St. Augustine, even though they were not formally added to the canon until at Trent.

These people are obviously not buying the argument that "the Church that originally defined the canon says so", so I'd very much appreciate any further evidence you guys could point me towards.[/quote]
I would first like to point out that the Catholic Church, both east and west, rejected the decision of the Rabbis at the council of Javneh (90 A.D.) when they excluded the seven books (Sirach, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, First and Second Maccabees, and Baruch) and the additions to Daniel and Esther from the Old Testament. The Catholic Church never accepted the Rabbinic canon of the Old Testament; instead, she used the Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of the Old Testament; and in doing this, the Church was following the example of the authors of the New Testament itself, who had done the same thing in composing the four Gospels and the various epistles.

Invariably the New Testament authors, when quoting the Old Testament, quote from the LXX, and not from the Hebrew text. That is why, if you look at the Epistle to the Hebrews (10:5-7) it does not agree with the Old Testament reading of Psalm 40 found in most modern translations of the Bible. The differences in the text of Hebrews 10:5-7 and Psalm 40:6-8, which the book of Hebrews is quoting, are due to the fact that the modern translations of the Old Testament are made from the Hebrew text, while the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not quoting the Hebrew text, but is instead quoting the LXX. So, Hebrews 10:5-7 says: "Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, [i][b]but a body hast thou prepared for me[/b][/i]; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.' Then I said, 'Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God, as it is written of me in the roll of the book.'" While the text of Psalm 40:6-8 says: "Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; [i][b]but thou hast given me an open ear[/b][/i]. Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. Then I said, 'Lo, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.'" The author of the book of Hebrews has quoted the LXX, because that text makes the point he is trying to get across, i.e., that the incarnation was necessary, and that Christ became man in order to become a sacrifice for sin. This idea would not be conveyed by quoting the Hebrew version of Psalm 40, which speaks of an "ear" not a "body."

The differences between the Hebrew and LXX versions of the Old Testament were not a problem for the early Church, because the early Church never accepted the decision of the Rabbis at Javneh, and never accepted the idea that the Hebrew version was superior to the Greek LXX. In fact it was not until the Reformation that the seven books in question were dropped from the canon. The Protestant Reformers chose to use the Jewish canon and in the process they rejected the Christian canon of the Old Testament, which had been canonically defined and universally accepted at the end of the 4th century. Ironically, the Reformers accepted the canon of the Old Testament established by the Rabbis, the very men who denied that Jesus was the Christ, and who also excommunicated the followers of Christ as heretics at that same council.

It is important to note that the Church has always accepted the canonicity of the seven additional books found in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. These seven books were included in the canon of scripture issued by the Synod of Rome in 382 A.D., and were again included in the canonical decisions issued by the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). The Catholic canon of the Old Testament was also formally recognized by Pope Innocent I in a letter he wrote to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D., and then the canon was yet again reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D., and this council was solemnly approved by Pope Boniface shortly after the council concluded. The Catholic canon of the Old Testament, once again including the seven additional books and the additions to Daniel and Esther, was implicitly reaffirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in 787 A.D., and was explicitly confirmed and the books were once again enumerated at the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 A.D., and it should be remembered that that council affirmed the canon of scripture 65 years before the Reformation even began. Later the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.), and the First (1870 A.D.) and Second Vatican Councils (1962-1965 A.D.), reaffirmed the canonical status of the books rejected by the Protestant Reformers.

Clearly then, the constant tradition of the Church, both in its practice and in its conciliar decisions, accepted the canon of the Old Testament which contains the seven books rejected by the Reformers.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

Taken from the following thread: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=20237&view=findpost&p=355346"]Deuterocanonical Books[/url]