A big difference between Christianity and Catholicism is the canon of scripture. Whereas Christians hold to the traditional (word used ironically) 66 books, the Catholic canon contains another set known as either the Apcrypha or the Deuterocanon (the Deuterocanon being the name for the portion of the Apocrypha accepted by Catholics).
Catholics have an interesting theory as to why this difference exists. To quote the Catholic who originally inspired the meme: "I mean, close, but y'all prots had removed several books to bend the bible to your heresy so..." So, is this true? Did "Protestants" (which it should be noted is a term this ministry is firmly against using to describe any kind of Christian theology) really remove the Deuterocanon in order to defend our theology?
First, that the Deuterocanon has always been of doubtful status even within the Catholic Church until 1548 is such a demonstrable fact that even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits it was the Council of Trent that "definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament canon", and that up until that time, several prominent Catholic figures, including Pope Gregory the Great, doubted its authenticity. From the days they were written, Jews, Christians and heretics have disputed the canonicity of the Deuterocanon, and for good reason. The Deuterocanon cannot be scripture, for a number of reasons. For example, there are several demonstrable errors, including the claim that Nebuchadnezzar was the King of the Assyrians, ruling from Nineveh (Judith 1:1). A fantasy writer might make this mistake, but no historian worth his salt would show his face in public with such an egregious error. You want to attribute that to God?
So, actually, no, "Protestants" did not remove the Deuterocanon; Catholics added it, they did so for terrible reasons, and in doing so they showed their ineptitude by ascribing inspired status to uninspired books. Not to mention the fact they did this very late, which shows even if the Deuterocanon was scriptural, the Catholic Church really didn't care enough to be considered the one true Church of Christ. If I gave you a job that you took 1500 years to complete, you can bet I'd be having some strong words with you and looking for a better employee.
But what of the motive? Is the Deuterocanon really so supportive of Catholicism that "Protestants" would need to remove it to support our theology? As it turns out, no. Not surprisingly for a collection of books that were published long before even the Catholic Church dares to pretend it originated, the Deuterocanon lends no credence to a single Catholic doctrine. There is no Pope, there is no Purgatory, there are no 7 sacraments, there is no prayers to Mary or the Saints, there is no Transubstantiation (which is significant, as there actually is witchcraft in Tobit, so we know the Deuterocanon is not entirely free of pagan influences). Bottom line, even if Christians believed the Deuterocanon was scripture, we would not have anything even remotely similar to the wonky theology of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, there is a startling admission in this argument. Allegedly, "Protestants" are in the business of removing books that threaten our theology. Yet, not a single book of the New Testament was removed, altered, or even mistranslated. Allegedly, we were so threatened by the Deuterocanon that we took the entire thing out, but we left in Matthew, we left in John, we left in every single book the Catholic Church accepts as New Testament scripture. Now, that might change one day. Maybe the Catholic Church will decide 3 Corinthians is inspired canon and claim Protestants took that out, or maybe they'll cut Jude out and claim Protestants added it in. The Catholic Church has evolved before, even with regard to the canon, and so it can easily evolve again. But for now, Catholics and "Protestants" both agree on the same canon except for the few books that were heavily disputed throughout all of Church history. So, are Catholics going to admit that the rest of the Bible is compatible with "Protestant" theology, at least to the point where we have no motive to remove them? Some Catholics may reply by saying it was easier to remove the Deuterocanon than the New Testament. And they'd be right, but that only proves the original point; the Deuterocanon was so easy to "remove" precisely because it was never really included in the first place. Only after Trent did the Deuterocanon become essential to the Catholic canon. So, really, the only reason for Catholics to argue that the Deuterocanon should be included in the Bible is because of the Council of Trent. But then we get into the realms of circular reasoning, because you have to assume the Catholic Church's authority in order to prove it.
On the whole, Christianity is not threatened by the Bible. Quite the opposite, it is the Bible from which Christian theology flows. The same cannot be said for the Catholic Church, whose theology flows from a variety of unbiblical sources. The Bible contradicts Catholicism in so many ways, they sometimes have the audacity to bash it. Personally, I'd rather meet God with a rejection of the Deuterocanon than a complete disregard for the scriptures He actually inspired.
Comments