I've seen a few Protestant debaters use the Glossa Ordinaria as a means to reject our 73 book Bible. I guess this commentary was the "standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church" in the 12th and 13th centuries and it designated what Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books and labeled them apocrypha. I'm hoping the Church condemned this view or at lease didn't give it credence, but I can't find anything. I'm hoping someone on this forum can shed some light on this.

Thanks!

-Ernie-

I would venture to guess that it was a Protestant who said it was the "standard authoritative Biblical commentary for the whole Western Church." It was widely used, but had no particular authority other than general acceptance.

The portions in question don't seem to be available in an English translation. While I do know Latin reasonably well, the process of trying to read the online editions is not appealing. As best as I can tell from secondary sources, it's repeating St. Jerome, whose ambivalence concerning the deuterocanonicals is well known.

Thanks for your response Obi-Wan. I thought it must have just been a Protestant point of view as well, but then I read this in the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

"So great was the influence of the Glossa Ordinaria on Biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and ‘the bible of scholasticism'"

So, it sure seems like it's value was pretty clear. And then here is part of the Prologue from the Glossa itself:

"There are, then, twenty-two canonical books of the old testament, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, as Eusebius reports, in book six of Ecclesiastical History, that Origen writes on the first Psalm; and Jerome says the same thing more fully and distinctly in his Helmeted Prologue to the books of Kings: All the books are divided into three parts by the Jews: into the law, which contains the five books of Moses; into the eight prophets; and into the nine hagiographa. This will be more clearly seen shortly. Some, however, separate the book of Ruth from the book of Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah from Jeremiah, and count them among the hagiographa in order to make twenty-four books, corresponding to the twenty-four elders whom the Apocalypse presents as adoring the lamb. These are the books that are in the canon, as blessed Jerome writes at greater length in the Helmeted Prologue to the books of Kings."

For a commentary that was held in such high esteem with such widespread usage and influence during that time period how could the Church not have made a statement about it? Maybe they didn't bless it, but the Church sure did seem to condone it. I'm baffled as to why not address the errors of Bible canon. In other articles I read the Church even used the Glossa in seminaries. And I can't find a single article or Catholic apologist addressing this.

I'm having a hard time addressing this head on as I'm having to fall back on Church authority, but it's admittedly a weak argument when it appears the Church had nothing critical to say about it.

Appreciate any help you or anyone could give!! Thank you!

-Ernie-

He's reporting the opinion of St. Jerome, as far as I can tell.

I also note that, at least in the Migne edition, there's nothing at the beginning of the commentary on Tobit that says it's not canonical.

I agree and if that is the case why wouldn't the Catholic Church issue its own prologue, so to speak, and condemn the belief that the 7 books are apocryphal? Keep the commentary as most seem to believe that is solid but condemn the mention of apocrypha. My issue is that since there doesn't appear to be any condemnation at all so why wouldn't the faithful believe that the Church supported this belief? Just doesn't make any sense to me...and it's something that gives Protestants justification for their erroneous beliefs. Just frustrating.