I got a Protestant bible for my birthday.

[SoMissCatholic]

Read it. And supplement with Apocrypha if it floats your boat.

The LCMS recent put put a version with notes.

cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

In looking at the book in your link, there was an option to “look inside” for a sample, and there was something in the Foreword of the book that I felt compelled to address. The Foreword states the following:

Early on, however, other churchmen such as Origen of Alexandria noted a difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Scriptures. Cyril of Jerusalem and Jerome also drew a line of separation between the two, using the term Apocrypha for the first time in reference to these writings. To be sure, Jerome included them in his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, but advised that the Apocrypha should be read for edification, not for supporting church dogma.

Clearly, then, the Early Church was of two minds on this issue: inclusionary—as witnessed in the fact that the Apocrypha were included in Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest and most authoritative Scriptures in book form—yet exclusionary as well. In the Medieval Church and beyond, however, the inclusionaries won the day. The Council of Trent, Roman Catholicism’s answer to the Reformation, actually anathematized those who did not credit the books of the Apocrypha as canonical. As this decision was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870, the Apocrypha remain canonical Scripture in Catholicism to the present day (never mind that the very man who gave the Roman Catholic church its official Latin Bible in the Vulgate, Jerome, did not regard the Apocrypha as canonical!).

While I give the author of the Foreword the benefit of the doubt that he is acting in good faith and communicating his understanding according to the Lutheran faith tradition, the bolded is simply false. According to this article by Mark Shea:

[T]he overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). **In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.” **

Therefore, it appears that the claim that St. Jerome did not consider the deuterocannon to be inspired scripture is not supportable in the historical record.

 

[po18guy]

In looking at the book in your link, there was an option to “look inside” for a sample, and there was something in the Foreword of the book that I felt compelled to address. The Foreword states the following: …While I give the author of the Foreword the benefit of the doubt that he is acting in good faith and communicating his understanding according to the Lutheran faith tradition, the bolded is simply false. According to this article by Mark Shea: …Therefore, it appears that the claim that St. Jerome did not consider the deuterocannon to be inspired scripture is not supportable in the historical record.

Yes, once again we see excuse after excuse for editing God’s word. The usual erroneous assumptions, canards and red herrings. Print them often enough and a few more believe them. Ever notice how Saint Jerome is trotted out ad nauseam when the Deuterocanon is mentioned, but dropped like a hot potato when his loyalty to the Pope, or his belief in all seven Sacraments is brought up? In fact, Saint Jerome never made a proclamation on the Deuterocanon, and relied on them in his writings.

Yet, neither Saint Jerome, nor any of the others mentioned (even if their quotes are accurate and in context) constituted a Church council, a la Acts 15. And, a Church council spoke 470 years ago and settled the matter.

The unanswerable question is: by whose authority is God’s word (i.e. Catholic/Orthodox scripture) demoted to “apocrypha”? And, where did they get that authority?

 

[agnes_therese]

When I say that it is the traditional teaching of the Church that keeping heretical books in ones home bears the penalty of excommunication, it is also because traditionally there was an Index of Forbidden Books issued by the Holy See, and keeping any of these books in ones home meant automatic excommunication. V2 may have done away with the Index, but these books are no less dangerous. It is a sin to read any literature contrary to the Catholic faith, that is, it is a sin to read heretical books that can endanger one’s Catholic faith. God bless you.

But you keep saying that it DOES bear the penalty of excommunication (as bolded above), not that it used to.

Obviously there’s no point in asking you to stop misrepresenting Church teaching.