The 44% Solution: Why Anti-Catholics Should Trust Their Instincts

One verse of Scripture that I try to keep in mind when doing apologetics is Deuteronomy 27:18, “’Cursed be he who misleads a blind man on his way!’” For me, the verse really hits home the importance of being as accurate as I possibly can whenever I write or give a talk. I know how easy it is, with the pressures of constantly producing new material, to misunderstand or misread something and accidentally mislead a lot of people. That is why whenever I run across something that does not seem right to me (especially when it concerns non-Catholics) red flags go up and I try to do my best to go the extra mile to make sure everything is accurate. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred my instincts prove correct and I save myself and others a lot of grief.

It seems to me that this is what happened to a member of our loyal opposition. On December 27, 2007, a blog article was posted on James Swan's website titled “Underwhelming Majority At Trent,” which was apparently a reprint of an old blog originally titled,“holy-spirited-guided majority vote." It stated:

“Here is something on the surface level that just doesn’t make sense.

'The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.'
-Wiki, Metzger (pg. 246)'

If the ratification of the biblical canon at Trent was just a formality, why such an underwhelming vote?“

The post breaks down the vote into percentages which comes out to 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining to which the author rhetorically asks:

“If the Council of Trent was simply affirming the same canon that had been held by the Church since the 4th century, wouldn’t you expect a better consensus than 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining?”

You can see the red flags going up. Something seems out of whack with these numbers. Unfortunately, Carrie, who authored the blog, didn’t trust her instincts and Swan published the article, apparently not only once, but twice. Indeed, the republished article didn’t escape the attention of another Protestant apologist, whom I respect, James White who wrote:

“…I am more than happy to learn new things from folks like James Swan and others who post on his blog as well. For example, I did not know that the "yes" vote for the canon comprised barely 40% of the small group gathered at Trent. That's a real confidence booster....”


Indeed, in a recent video, James White revisits Carrie's point:

"Amazingly, even at the Council of Trent, a sizable portion of the prelates held to Jerome's view. In fact, the final dogmatic acceptance on the part of Rome of these books did not even garner a majority vote! The vote that decided the canon for Roman Catholics was 24 yea, 15 nay, and 16 abstaining! That means that less than 44% voted for the final decision of Trent! And this is Rome's infallible and dogmatic pronouncement!"

("Steve Ray On Catholic Answers Live," YouTube Video)

In a way, I do understand why Carrie and/or White ignored the red flags and went with the story. Bruce Metzger is a very reputable Protestant scholar and the quote comes from a well respected work, namely, The New Testament Canon: It’s Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987).  How could a great scholar like Bruce Metzger (or B. F. Westcott for that matter) be wrong on Trent? I started digging.

Once I began to look into the “44% argument,” several other red flags began to pop up in my mind. One big flag came when I noticed that the quote given in my copy of Metzger  did not match the one given in Swan's article. My copy reads:

“

The quote above is very different from the one used in the article, which read:

““The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.’”

Where did Swan's quote come from? Are we using two different editions? I’m not sure. I also checked the link to Wikipedia that was provided, but I was unable to find the quote there either. As you can see, my quote from Metzger is much more complex than that given in the article.

The second red flag came when I noted the absence of any footnote in Metzger for his figures (see photocopy above). Where did Metzger get the 24 to 15 voting tally? The deliberations at Trent were long and there were a few votes taken during its deliberations. If the vote was on April 8^th (when the Decree on the Canon of Scripture was promulgated), was it a vote to approve the entire decree or was it a vote on some specific part? Both the article and White clearly believe that the "44% vote" was on the approval of the entire Decree. For example, the article stated:

“If the Council of Trent was simply affirming the same canon that had been held by the Church since the 4th century, wouldn’t you expect a better consensus than 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining?”

“From a strictly human perspective, a 44% majority is far from convincing me that the council members at Trent were sure of the historical witness to the exact nature of the canon” [Emphasis mine in both quotes].

Likewise, James White's view is equally clear:

"I did not know that the "yes" vote for the canon comprised barely 40%"

""In fact, the final dogmatic acceptance on the part of Rome of these books did not even garner a majority vote!"

"That means that less than 44% voted for the final decision of Trent!" [emphasis mine]

What was the “44% vote?”

When I see red flags, I do a little digging. The first place I looked was the same place I looked to confirm the Council’s position on the book of Esdras, the Concilium Tridentinum (Fridburgi Brisgoviae, 1964). This multi-volume set contains the official acts of Trent along with the diaries and letters from key fathers at the Council.

The first place I looked was on April 8, 1546 when Trent adopted the decree. Not surprisingly, I didn’t find a 44% majority. Instead, I found that all the Council fathers essentially gave approval to the decree (see below).



Concilium Tridentinum, volume 5, p. 92.

The 44% yea, 27% nay, and 29% abstaining is obviously not the adoption of the decree on the canon. The 44% wasn't the voting margin for the decree? Then, where did it come from? Could it have happened earlier in the Council when the contents of the canon itself was discussed? There was some voting on this topic, not on April 8th, but February, 15, 1546. It took place in the General Council. And again, we find that all the fathers gave their approval ("Et omnes responderunt placet") "(and all responded yes)."



Concilium Tridentinum, volume 1, 32

There's no 44% vote here either. After further digging, I finally discovered the 24 to 15 vote. As the Catholic historian Peter Duncker records:



Catholic Biblical Quarterly (15), 1953, p. 289

I went back to the official records of Trent and sure enough everything that Duncker had said was there (see below).



Concilium Tridentinum, volume 5, p. 10

Finally, here is the 24 to 15 vote! Carrie was right; the vote total didn’t make sense for a council that was merely rubber-stamping decisions of previous councils. The 44% vote had nothing to do with the contents of the canon, rather it appears that the vote concerned the inclusion of a anathema (the application of canonical penalties to those who deny what is stated).  I should note that, according to Dunker, there is some slight disagreement among the sources and it is not completely clear whether this vote was on the inclusion of the anathema or whether it was on whether it would be illicit for the council to include a refutation of some of the attacks on the canon in its decree. Dunker makes a good case that the 44% vote was on the latter and not the former. What is clear is that this vote was not the Decree on the Canon of Scripture nor was it on the adoption of the contents of the canon.

Why is there disagreement on what this vote was on? Because the 44% vote had no effect on the final decree. It was a straw vote taken during an ongoing discussion Moreover, if you look closely at the quote above (Concilium Tridentinum, volume 5, p. 10) you will see that the vote didn't decide anything for the General Council. The document explicitly states "(sed nihil decretum)", which is translated    "(but nothing was decided)."

The Main Points:

1. The "44% vote" was not in the "final dogmatic acceptance" of the Decree on April 8, 1546.

2. The vote was not on the canon. It was either on the lawfulness of adding a refutation in the Decree or the anathema.

3. The "44%" was a straw vote that didn't settle the question on the inclusion of refutations or the anathema.

What about Metzger? Did he say that the Decree on the Canon was passed by a slim majority? If you look closely at Metzger's quote (as I found it), you’ll see that his complex statement is really speaking of the vote to adopt a decree "in which" the anathema was given. It was the anathema, not the contents of the canon, that set Trent apart from previous councils. Metzger was really saying was that the Decree on the Canon promulgated on April 8, 1546 was the first decree on the Canon to include an anathema, which was adopted by a 24 to 15 vote with 16 abstaining.

Carrie and White has apparently misunderstood Metzger. Moreover, Metzger didn't really read Trent very carefully because the vote he recorded likely wasn't even on the anathema and even if it was apparently "nothing was decided” by it.

Conclusion:

What’s the difference between a propagandist and an apologist? A propagandist is mainly concerned with mocking and ridiculing his opponents for the entertainment of his co-religionists using whatever information he or she finds to be damaging. An apologist, however, takes his opponents seriously and recognizes that the opponents do have a rationale for what they believe. A good apologist feels the strength of his opponent’s position before critiquing it. The very fact that this article had a red flag or two, I think, says some good things about Carrie. As for the "44% vote" idea, this one has been sent to the graveyard of bad arguments, may it rest in peace.

Related Topic: Were There Scholars At The Council of Trent?

Thank you Carrie... Here are the corrections that I made...

On January 21, 2008, "Carrie" from the James Swan blog posted an article that concerned a few mistakes I made in the article above. I just became aware of it tonight (Jan 24th), so I hope you will forgive me for my tardiness. I'm very thankful to Carrie for noting a few corrections that need to be made to my article above."

First, the article apparently was not written by James Swan, but "Carrie." I changed the article to reflect that. Hopefully, I got all the references. James Swan will have to miss out on the kudos, though because I thought my article was very complimentary of him. Second, the "44% vote" was not made in the particular councils (the classes), but the General Council. When writing the article, I was referencing the Latin texts and as you can see in CT, v. 5, p. 10, the header read "classes." This was an honest mistake. I'm still learning how to navigate the labyrinth that is the Concilium Tridentinum. Please make note of the change.

Carrie also was confused since the vote took placed on Feb. 15th, yet my copy of CT, v. 5, p. 10 read Feb. 18th. Carrie's confusion with the date just goes to show how confusing the CT headers can be. The date at the top reflects the day's discussion for the date given. Feb. 15th ends at the top of the page and the classes of Feb. 18th begins right after it. here is a scan of the entire page so you can see what I mean. The dates given in my article, however, are correct. Carrie is also correct in noting, and I mentioned this in my article, that the diaries and the acts give conflicting accounts of exactly what this vote represented (including even the tallies). I believe the confusion was due mainly to two reasons. First, the "addition of arguments" and "the anathema" questions are different but also very interrelated. It would be easy to see why different people understand the vote to represent different things. Second, whenever Trent does an important vote, more times then not, it is very precise, individual's votes are recorded, and additional comments are carefully noted. As Duncker notes, this vote is a mess. I can only conclude from this what I state in my article; the 44% vote was little more than a straw vote.

I think Carrie and I can agree, however, on the main points of my article, (1) The Wikipedia article that was cited in Carrie's article was overly interpretive of Metzger to the point of being misleading, (2) The "44%" was not on the final adoption of the decree on April 8, 1546, but February 15, 1546, and (3) Whatever the "44%" vote represented, it was not on the adoption of the Florentine canon. Thank you very much for you help. Please inform those on your blog of these corrections.