Does the Catholic Church frown on reading apocrypha?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
I do not mean apocrypha as in books which are not regarded by any Christian community as canon, but does the church have an objection to reading books that some Orthodox churches view as canon such as the Greek 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Mannesah, Psalm 151, Enoch, Jubilees, Shepard of Hermas, etc? I was just wondering what the churches stance is on these books. 1 Esdras seems to be just a retelling of the return of the Jews from Babylon, almost a mash up of Ezra-Nehemiah. 2 Esdras I found very interesting. It is very apocalyptic and reminded me somewhat of the book of Revelation. 3 Maccabees is a nice read, it is about the Jews in Egypt being persecuted and the king ordering them to be stomped out by elephants but God intervenes. 4 Maccabees is very much a philosophical book that relies heavily on events portrayed in 2 Maccabees. I just wanted to know what the church thinks of these books?
 
No and for Catholics it is called Deuteronomical and they church says it is ok to read.
 
PopePiusXIISupp said:
No and for Catholics it is called Deuteronomical and they church says it is ok to read.
Click to expand...
These books mentioned by the OP are apocryphal and not deuterocanonical. Deuterocanonical books are e.g. Tobit and Sirach; the ones included in Catholic Bibles but not in Protestant ones. Apocrypha are included in no Bibles.
 
PopePiusXIISupp said:
No and for Catholics it is called Deuteronomical and they church says it is ok to read.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. The Deuteronomical books are the ones the Protestants call apocrypha.

The books the the OP is mentioning are not part of the Deuteronomical books and are what the Catholic Church would consider apocrypha.
 
jas84173 said:
I do not mean apocrypha as in books which are not regarded by any Christian community as canon, but does the church have an objection to reading books that some Orthodox churches view as canon such as the Greek 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Mannesah, Psalm 151, Enoch, Jubilees, Shepard of Hermas, etc? I was just wondering what the churches stance is on these books. 1 Esdras seems to be just a retelling of the return of the Jews from Babylon, almost a mash up of Ezra-Nehemiah. 2 Esdras I found very interesting. It is very apocalyptic and reminded me somewhat of the book of Revelation. 3 Maccabees is a nice read, it is about the Jews in Egypt being persecuted and the king ordering them to be stomped out by elephants but God intervenes. 4 Maccabees is very much a philosophical book that relies heavily on events portrayed in 2 Maccabees. I just wanted to know what the church thinks of these books?
Click to expand...
No, you may read. There are even apocrypha books/letter from the New Testament era of the Church.

One of my favorites is regarding the Assumption of Mary

newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm
 
The word is deuterocanonical. There is no such word as deuteronomical.
 
The only thing apocrypha means is that it’s not part of canon. Meaning, it’s like any other book in the sense that it doesn’t carry divine authority with it. You’re allowed to read books other than the books of the Catholic Bible, ergo you’re allowed to read apocrypha. Such books could potentially be very spiritually edifying for you.
 
The short answer? No.

Reading extrabiblical Jewish and early Christian literature actually enriches your knowledge of Jewish and early Christian thinking. How can that be a bad thing?
 
bemily said:
The word is deuterocanonical. There is no such word as deuteronomical.
Click to expand...
And, there is no such thing as the word police…the poster made a mistake that did not change the context of his message, and the more charitable action would be to just overlook it.
 
Neofight said:
And, there is no such thing as the word police…the poster made a mistake that did not change the context of his message, and the more charitable action would be to just overlook it.
Click to expand...
I partially agree with you, but mostly disagree. There isn’t anything wrong with pointing out the mistake so it isn’t made in the future, so long as pointing it out isn’t done with condescension. I would rather be corrected and not keep repeating my error than have people be “charitable” by allowing me to continue on in ignorance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top