What is the view of the apocrypha in the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal1984 said:
Because they were in the appendix of the Clementine Vulgate and in the Vulgate even prior to that. So they differ from other apocrypha in that the Church has openly promoted Catholics reading them throughout the centuries.
Click to expand...
And I hate to tell you this, but throughout the centuries, these bits of “pious scripture” were recited throughout Christendom for hundreds of years, whether through liturgy or through pious prayer.
Also Protestants make no distinction from these and the deuterocanonical books which they call the apocrypha . So it is interesting we always talk about Protestants removing these books from their Bibles but what about the fact that the Apocrypha also includes these which both of us don’t view as canon?
Click to expand...
and…
Your question actually hits exactly the point I’m making. These three are in Catholic Bibles. Or at least they used to be in an appendix. Newer ones refrain from it. Yes the apocrypha consists of many books but these three seem to have a place of elevated status if that makes any sense, since they were in the Vulgate and also are used in liturgy.
Other apocryphal texts don’t have that going on for them. The fact that they were preserved in the Vulgate seems like the Church then must have held them in esteem even if they weren’t considered Canon.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t understand. It sounds more or less like you agree with me.
Look there’s a lot of apocryphal writings. Some are orthodox, some are heretical. I own the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha by Wensworth and the New Testament Apocrypha by Eliot. There’s many texts. Some were very much esteemed by the early Church, such as Enoch, Jubilees, the Shepherd etc.
In the east they accept more books as well such as additional Esdras named here and also additional Maccabees books.
I’m only referring to the Latin Rite for the most part with this post. That the Council of Trent reaffirmed the Canon once and for all and yet nonetheless Pope Clement Vlll felt the three texts mentioned in the OP were worthy to be placed in an appendix of the Vulgate where it remained and still remains though the Nova Vulgate doesn’t include them. Also the Douay Rheims included them until 1752 when Challoner stripped the annotations and supplements including these texts. But the point I’m saying is it seems as though these three texts have a special place in Church history; even if they aren’t regarded as Canon, they were on the brink of it. And many Catholics in the past did know these texts very well.
So yes there are a lot of books considered apocrypha but in a sense of the Church it seems these are on a different level of reverence than say the Gospel of Thomas or the Psalms of Solomon etc.
 
Last edited:
Were you referring to the apocrypha in a sense of the books Protestants refer too?
Yes, most of the apocrypha in a Protestant sense is considered canon by the Catholic Church, however not these three. These three Catholics would agree with Protestants are apocrypha. However the Church has through the ages promoted reading them. I mean they were in the original Douay Rheims Bible as well.
Scroll to page 1970. And by the way. Will some Catholic publisher put this back into print!? This is such an amazing Bible!

 
Last edited:
Why not though?
See this is something I don’t get. We Catholics always say Protestants have things missing from their Bibles right?
But the Apocrypha of the KJV includes these texts. They were in the Vulgate, that is why.

Can someone explain to me why the Church reaffirmed every book and addition the Protestants call apocrypha but not these three?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I don’t know. There must be some reason that the Council of Trent didn’t include them.
 
Of course. I really hope someone republishes the pre Challoner Douay Rheims eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top