Hit me with your best shot

[Xavier]

St. James' refutation of Luther is sublime. No wonder Luther tried to remove St. James' Epistle from his Canon.

Jam 2:"[14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

[16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"

Luther ridiculously wrote: "Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." This man simply rejected the Word of God and was a false prophet and heretic. St. James' teaching is faith without works is dead.

[ermy_law]

Sure. But good luck identifying God's Word in a way that's easier to identify the True Church or True Tradition. Who are you to disdain upon the Gospel of Thomas? Or for that matter, who are you to believe that the Bible hasn't been corrupted in such a way that the Quran is our salvation?

I don't disdain it. I think it's sublime, and I think it's content that is not shared with the Synoptics has the same character as Jesus' sayings in these. But what matters, at the end of the day, is not those thoughts but whether what it reveals can indeed become an object of gnosis.

Just started reading the Gospel of Thomas now.
Extremely interesting passage that jumped out at me:

The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

James the Righteous is James the Just, the brother of the Lord and author of the Epistle of St James, and the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

I think Jesus is teaching in this passage not a juridical authority ascribed to St James himself, but a charismatic authority belonging to the righteous. He's saying that in disputes you should defer to the one who is most righteous. St James is the archetype of the righteous man, for whose sake the world was created. He presided in Jerusalem as the first of the Christian churches, the prototype for all the rest. "Wherever you are", you're supposed to seek out the one spiritually endowed with righteousness.

This question of who has the authority has bothered me for some time. Our Lord was specifically asked who was greatest among the disciples. His reply was in line with your idea: He showed them a child and told them that the lesser among them was the greatest. On another occasion, he told them that the greatest among them would be their servant.

[Vetus Ordo]

St. James' refutation of Luther is sublime.

You realize that Protestant theologians have engaged in the exegesis of the Epistle James for centuries, right?

The faith that justifies is never barren or dry, i.e., without works. The understanding that it is solely the fides caritate formata that justifies the helpless sinner before God is a fundamental and undeniable doctrine of the New Testament that the Church proclaims. Vide the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, signed in 1999, also adopted since by the World Communion of Reformed Churches and the World Methodist Council.

I quote: We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

Also: We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

[james03]

this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill

An amazing refutation of Luther.

[james03]

Just for kicks I checked out James White The God Who Justifies

Check out the Dave Hunt vs. James White debate also.  Note both are supposedly guided by the Holy Ghost and both think the other is going to hell.

[james03]

abc123, I'm assuming you are sincere and I'll go through what I went through when I reverted back to Catholicism.

The main thing when you don't know is to exclude what you know to be in error.

First, exclude those who equate the "Church" as synonymous with "Christian".  That is based on history and the Bible.  The acid test is to exclude any sect that does not have Bishops, as they are not a biblical sect no matter what they claim.  That excludes about half the sects.

Next I had a real problem with those who did not baptize, even if they think of it just as an initiation ceremony, as the ACTS of the Apostles is basically a history of the first bishops going around and baptizing everyone in sight.  A lot of overlap, maybe complete overlap with the first group you excluded.

Next exclude those who preach OSAS, that is, once saved, always saved.  These especially twist scripture.  If you have Not By Faith Alone then go through the scripture cites by Sungenis.

Exclude any sect from Luther, as he hated the Bible, denied regeneration, and denied sanctification.

So you are left with those Christians who claim to have a church with a hierarchy of bishops, that believe you are saved by Faith, but that you can lose your salvation by committing the sins listed by St. Paul.

Then you look at history.  What group of Christians trace back to the beginning?  Now I have come across the delusional who profess the "hidden Christians" that gathered together on Wednesdays at preacher Bobs house to read his literally million dollar bible hand written on vellum and study scripture.  As I said, delusional.

And you are left with Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  Those are the only two the survive the cut.  Both I hold to have valid sacraments, but I can't go with Orthodoxy due to divorce.  So in the end I was left with Catholicism.  And if you are a fan of James White, I suspect that the Catholic soteriology is closer to your views than Orthodoxy, though to be honest I know little about theirs.

[abc123]

abc123, I'm assuming you are sincere and I'll go through what I went through when I reverted back to Catholicism.

The main thing when you don't know is to exclude what you know to be in error.

First, exclude those who equate the "Church" as synonymous with "Christian".  That is based on history and the Bible.  The acid test is to exclude any sect that does not have Bishops, as they are not a biblical sect no matter what they claim.  That excludes about half the sects.

Next I had a real problem with those who did not baptize, even if they think of it just as an initiation ceremony, as the ACTS of the Apostles is basically a history of the first bishops going around and baptizing everyone in sight.  A lot of overlap, maybe complete overlap with the first group you excluded.

Next exclude those who preach OSAS, that is, once saved, always saved.  These especially twist scripture.  If you have Not By Faith Alone then go through the scripture cites by Sungenis.

Exclude any sect from Luther, as he hated the Bible, denied regeneration, and denied sanctification.

So you are left with those Christians who claim to have a church with a hierarchy of bishops, that believe you are saved by Faith, but that you can lose your salvation by committing the sins listed by St. Paul.

Then you look at history.  What group of Christians trace back to the beginning?  Now I have come across the delusional who profess the "hidden Christians" that gathered together on Wednesdays at preacher Bobs house to read his literally million dollar bible hand written on vellum and study scripture.  As I said, delusional.

And you are left with Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  Those are the only two the survive the cut.  Both I hold to have valid sacraments, but I can't go with Orthodoxy due to divorce.  So in the end I was left with Catholicism.  And if you are a fan of James White, I suspect that the Catholic soteriology is closer to your views than Orthodoxy, though to be honest I know little about theirs.

James-

Thanks for taking the time. I have both theological and historical bones to pick with your points but I appreciate you taking the time and going through your own process in coming to where you are at.

You are correct regarding soteriology vis a vis Roman/Protestantism and Orthodoxy. In fact most Orthodox will state that despite the outward appearances and similarities between Rome and Orthodoxy they actually consider Rome and Protestantism two sides of the same coin for this very reason.

[Davis Blank - EG]

It might have gotten lost in the quoting of Buddhism and Gnostic texts (?!)

 

[Xavier]

You realize that Protestant theologians have engaged in the exegesis of the Epistle James for centuries, right?

(1) Arians have likewise "engaged in the exegesis of" Jn 1:1 for centuries. It doesn't change the fact it contradicts them. And (2) Luther threw this book out, and called the Apostle's Epistle "an Epistle of Straw", because he knew it contradicted his doctrine. He himself knew it.

The faith that justifies is never barren or dry, i.e., without works

This is a Lutheran idea, but not the Catholic Truth. I can think of at least 3 texts against this idea;

I. Our Lord, Who said, "Jn 15: 2 Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." Notice He says, every branch in Me; so a bad Christian, already in Christ, who does not bear fruit; such a one will fall into mortal sin and lose Grace; a good Christian, the Lord Himself says, is purged, so as to bear more fruit. Both were justified already. One was barren.

II. St. Paul, in 1 Cor 3:13-15; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

How will you explain this one, Vetus? the Catholic clearly sees here (1) good works done in faith are meritorious; they cause grace to increase in the justified and obtain a greater reward in heaven; (2) bad works of the justified who did not work well shall have to be burned up, purged, cause the person to suffer loss and to be saved only through fire. This shows those justified can still work badly and that for such justified sinners, purgatorial fire is the means by which they attain complete sanctification and final salvation.

III. St. Peter, quoted earlier: "2 Pet 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:" See how St. Peter commands us (1) to make every effort to add virtues and love to faith; this alone shows faith is not enough, and sola fide is wrong. (2) St. Peter says he who lacks the other things is blind, and though justified, will be barren. The person who adds love to faith will be neither barren nor unfaithful. (3) St. Peter says good works can make our calling and election sure. (4) St. Peter teaches that those who do these things (add virtues, works, knowledge, love etc to faith) will not fall.

And as for St. James, kindly explain the example of the demons: do the demons believe or not? If so, why aren't they justified? Catholics say, they lack the faith that worked by love, as St. Michael and the good Angels had; as Abraham had, and as we are to have.

Your common declaration has some good parts: "By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation". This is true, Baptismal Regeneration. Only two things justify (1) Baptism itself, as St. Peter says "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21), or (2) Baptism of Desire, i.e. Faith that works through Love or Charity, also called, An Act of Contrition. So, when St. Paul says we are justified by faith that works through love in Our Lord Jesus Christ, this is what he means. Acts of Faith and Contrition justify. But good works done in faith after justification are meritorious.

Imputed Justification=Salvation is not the correct equation also; Infused Justification+Complete Sanctification+ Final Perseverance=Full Salvation.

[Vetus Ordo]

(1) Arians have likewise "engaged in the exegesis of" Jn 1:1 for centuries. It doesn't change the fact it contradicts them. And (2) Luther threw this book out, and called the Apostle's Epistle "an Epistle of Straw", because he knew it contradicted his doctrine. He himself knew it.

I'm trying to make you realize that these issues are more nuanced and complex than simply James "refuting" Luther. The Joint Declaration on Justification, that I quoted earlier, between the Church and the Lutheran communion is a poignant testament to that.

As for the "epistle of straw," please keep in mind a few things:

1. Martin Luther is not the magisterium for Protestants;
2. The Luther Bible does not have any book of the Old and New Testament missing. It is incorrect to keep affirming that the monk of Erfurt removed books from it;
3. Until the definitive decision of the Council of Trent, it was legitimate for theologians to engage in criticism of the canon;
4. The epistle of James is canonical in Protestant bibles.

If you are genuinely interested in knowing more about this subject, as you should if you are to engage in serious apologetics, I'd recommend you check Luther's "Epistle of Straw" Comment (1) and (2) and Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture from the excellent blog Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics. It is vital to understand the position of your opponent in context and to deal with it fairly.

This is a Lutheran idea, but not the Catholic Truth. I can think of at least 3 texts against this idea...

I'm not arguing for Protestantism, so I'm not going to bother. If you're interested in understanding how Protestant theologians have interpreted and wrestled with these texts, there's ample information out there. Read their sources if you wish to engage with them meaningfully.

Your common declaration has some good parts

The declaration is not mine, it's the Church's.

[Xavier]

I'm trying to make you realize that these issues are more nuanced and complex than simply James "refuting" Luther

Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the truest. All Christians agree St. John refuted Arius. So why not St. James refuting Luther?

Protestants sometimes tell me faith alone in Christ is enough for salvation. I tell them, in that case, all professing Catholics are saved! And they shouldn't then try to add their works to our Faith! But seriously, the Church has never downplayed the importance of Catholic or Christian Faith, a look at the Athanasian Creed will suffice to demonstrate that. Indeed, what is a Creed, but a Profession of Faith and a demonstration of the importance of the Faith in salvation? Definitely, the Faith is indispensable for salvation, and without it we can't please God or save our soul. But good works are the necessary building blocks to add to the foundation of faith. To neglect that will also surely be displeasing to God.

Anyway, there are three essential doctrines at stake here, which are all teachings of the Church: (1) that good works post-justification are truly meritorious; they cause increases in sanctifying grace. (2) That these works done in Union with Christ are also satisfactory, i.e. they reduce the temporal punishment still owed for our sins, and also can be "offered up" for the Holy Souls in Purgatory etc. (3) That good works are ordinarily indispensable in the complete sanctification of the Christian Soul, and in obtaining Final Perseverance.

Thus, for e.g. the Council of Trent, very well understanding the errors of the reformers, stated, "CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." and "CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema. and also, "CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm from which 3 dogmas we learn 3 essential Catholic doctrines on grace, merit, accidental and essential glory in heaven, and the role of good works.

The Joint Statement you have provided covers this ground when it says, "38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace." I do not object to this per se, but there is a clear trend in modern liberal ecumenism that, instead of seeking to return the Lutherans or others to Catholic Faith (as Pope Ven. Pius XII, for e.g. said should be done), tries to forge some kind of impossible middle ground between Truth and error. The statement itself is not incorrect. Good works done in Christ contribute to growth in Grace, just as Trent had taught us.

If we are taught by the holy Doctors and Saints of the Church, like St. Alphonsus in Refutation of all heresies, we learn that the purpose of Theology is not to devise a clever human compromise between divine Truth and human error, but rather for Truth to Triumph over it. So the important thing is not so much to understand manifold errors but the One Truth.

[TheReturnofLive]

(1) Arians have likewise "engaged in the exegesis of" Jn 1:1 for centuries. It doesn't change the fact it contradicts them. And (2) Luther threw this book out, and called the Apostle's Epistle "an Epistle of Straw", because he knew it contradicted his doctrine. He himself knew it.

I'm trying to make you realize that these issues are more nuanced and complex than simply James "refuting" Luther. The Joint Declaration on Justification, that I quoted earlier, between the Church and the Lutheran communion is a poignant testament to that.

As for the "epistle of straw," please keep in mind a few things:

1. Martin Luther is not the magisterium for Protestants;
2. The Luther Bible does not have any book of the Old and New Testament missing. It is incorrect to keep affirming that the monk of Erfurt removed books from it;
3. Until the definitive decision of the Council of Trent, it was legitimate for theologians to engage in criticism of the canon;
4. The epistle of James is canonical in Protestant bibles.

If you are genuinely interested in knowing more about this subject, as you should if you are to engage in serious apologetics, I'd recommend you check Luther's "Epistle of Straw" Comment (1) and (2) and Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture from the excellent blog Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics. It is vital to understand the position of your opponent in context and to deal with it fairly.

This is a Lutheran idea, but not the Catholic Truth. I can think of at least 3 texts against this idea...

I'm not arguing for Protestantism, so I'm not going to bother. If you're interested in understanding how Protestant theologians have interpreted and wrestled with these texts, there's ample information out there. Read their sources if you wish to engage with them meaningfully.

Your common declaration has some good parts

The declaration is not mine, it's the Church's.

Let's not forget that Saint Athanasius's own opinion on the canon of the Bible more closely lines up with Luther's than the Tridentine canon. See here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

[Vetus Ordo]

Let's not forget that Saint Athanasius's own opinion on the canon of the Bible more closely lines up with Luther's than the Tridentine canon. See here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

True. However, this only highlights the inherent futility of the Father's game, as I like to put it, for apologetic purposes. Properly speaking, it doesn't really matter in Catholicism what a given Father said or thought. If he agrees with what the Church eventually defined, he's a "witness" to apostolic tradition. If he happens to disagree or teach something else entirely, he's either mistaken, being misunderstood or just speaking as a "private theologian." The judge is the magisterium. Appealing to the Fathers to validate a certain dogma, or ecclesiastical tradition, only works if you have already accepted the authority of the magisterium to begin with.

Furthermore, the futility of the game also brings us to a different question: is there even an infallible and definite canon of Church Fathers? Could we expand the list, unearth different names or drop others? To be honest, I take the usual claims about the Fathers in apologetics with a grain of salt. Patristics is useful discipline for historical context but not much more than that.

[james03]

1. Martin Luther is not the magisterium for Protestants;  -- True.

2. The Luther Bible does not have any book of the Old and New Testament missing. It is incorrect to keep affirming that the monk of Erfurt removed books from it; -- point being that Luther hated the Bible and tried to remove the 4 books.  In the end he was convinced to just put Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse in a separate section with this preface: "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."  And let us not forget his famous edit of Romans.

3. Until the definitive decision of the Council of Trent, it was legitimate for theologians to engage in criticism of the canon; -- doubtful, but even if true, he was wrong.

4. The epistle of James is canonical in Protestant bibles. -- not in Luther's.  See above preface.

But yes, Luther is not the end all and be all.  Calvinists I've debated reject Sola Fide.  A more correct "catch phrase" for them would be Sola Gratia

[Xavier]

(1) Arians have likewise "engaged in the exegesis of" Jn 1:1 for centuries. It doesn't change the fact it contradicts them. And (2) Luther threw this book out, and called the Apostle's Epistle "an Epistle of Straw", because he knew it contradicted his doctrine. He himself knew it.

I'm trying to make you realize that these issues are more nuanced and complex than simply James "refuting" Luther. The Joint Declaration on Justification, that I quoted earlier, between the Church and the Lutheran communion is a poignant testament to that.

As for the "epistle of straw," please keep in mind a few things:

1. Martin Luther is not the magisterium for Protestants;
2. The Luther Bible does not have any book of the Old and New Testament missing. It is incorrect to keep affirming that the monk of Erfurt removed books from it;
3. Until the definitive decision of the Council of Trent, it was legitimate for theologians to engage in criticism of the canon;
4. The epistle of James is canonical in Protestant bibles.

If you are genuinely interested in knowing more about this subject, as you should if you are to engage in serious apologetics, I'd recommend you check Luther's "Epistle of Straw" Comment (1) and (2) and Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture from the excellent blog Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics. It is vital to understand the position of your opponent in context and to deal with it fairly.

This is a Lutheran idea, but not the Catholic Truth. I can think of at least 3 texts against this idea...

I'm not arguing for Protestantism, so I'm not going to bother. If you're interested in understanding how Protestant theologians have interpreted and wrestled with these texts, there's ample information out there. Read their sources if you wish to engage with them meaningfully.

Your common declaration has some good parts

The declaration is not mine, it's the Church's.

Let's not forget that Saint Athanasius's own opinion on the canon of the Bible more closely lines up with Luther's than the Tridentine canon. See here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

Our primary source of information about the third council of Carthage, held in A.D. 397, is an ancient document known as the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by various church councils in Carthage during the fourth and fifth centuries. Karl Joseph von Hefele, in his History of the Councils of the Church, 1 states that this compilation was done in the year 419 by Dionysius Exiguus, who called it the Statuta Concilii Africani. Others have called it the "African Code." In one section of this code there is a record of the ordinances enacted at the third council of Carthage, in which the following paragraph concerning the canon of Scripture appears. 2

[Item placuit ut praeter Scripturas canonicas nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae hae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Naue, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quator, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, libri duodecim prophetarum, Jesaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti, evangeliorum libri quator, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Epistolae Pauli Apostoli xiii., ejusdem ad Hebraeos una, Petri apostoli duae, Johannes tres, Jacobi i., Judae i., Apocalipsis Johannis liber unus. Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifatio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda. Liceat autem legi passiones martyrum cum anniversarii eorum dies celebrantur.]   It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept." ... Books of the Apocrypha are named in this list: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees; and the expression "five books of Solomon" implies the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Augustine, in his City of God and On Christian Doctrine, says that in addition to Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are often ascribed to Solomon). Some have attributed the inclusion of these books to the influence of Augustine in Hippo and Carthage, because in his writings he sometimes treats them as canonical. But the canon itself purports to give a list of books which were traditionally read in the African churches: “quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

"The Council of Florence is one of the most exciting, and in some ways, one of the most tragic, Councils in the history of the Church. It’s one of the so-called “reunion Councils,” which seemed poised to heal the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

The first reunion Council was the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. Here’s how OrthodoxWiki describes that Council: Concerning the Union of the Churches, the Orthodox delegation arrived in Lyons on June 24, 1245 and presented a letter from emperor Michael. On Feast of Peter and Paul, June 29, Pope Gregory celebrated a Mass in the Church of St. John in which both sides took part. During the Mass, the Orthodox clergy sang the Nicene Creed with the addition of the Filioque clause three times. The council was seemingly a success ... As with the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence initially appeared to be a success. The Sixth Session declared:

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed ...

The Bull of Union with the Copts (1442) captures the excitement of a Church on the brink of reunion: For in less than three years our lord Jesus Christ by his indefatigable kindness, to the common and lasting joy of the whole of Christianity, has generously effected in this holy ecumenical synod the most salutary union of three great nations ...

Although it ended badly, the Council of Florence is a remarkable moment in Christian history. Christians representing all of the major Churches around the known world gathered together and tentatively agreed on a plan to reunite the Church. Here’s what they agreed upon, at least for a while: ...

III. The Council of Florence on the Bible

In the Bull of Union with the Copts, a declaration of faith was prepared to explain what the Church held. It included a section on Scripture, listing (by name) each of the 73 Books of the Catholic Bible as canonical. I bolded the seven Books in dispute between Catholics and Protestants:

It [the Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Hence it anathematizes the madness of the Manichees who posited two first principles, one of visible things, the other of invisible things, and said that one was the God of the new Testament, the other of the old Testament.

It’s often said that the Catholic Church didn’t define the canon until after the Reformation. But here we see the Church laying out the canon of Scripture, with an anathema clause at the end." http://shamelesspopery.com/the-council-of-florence-on-the-pope-the-church-and-the-bible/