- Status
S
St_Redemption
Guest
No offense but this seems to me another example of a common Catholic practice where entire edifices of precise theology are constructed from imprecise and vague words found in scripture. “But nothing unclean shall enter Heaven” could mean a million things. It could mean that through faith in Christ we are made pure after death and are led into Heaven in this manner. It could mean that unsaved souls are not to be found in Heaven.
“You (God) are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong”…this just states an obvious Characteristic of The Lord. How on earth can you think that these passages make it clear that a thing called Purgatory exists? I understand that the magisterium has interpreted these things for you and that you accept that on faith. But lets not pretend that passages so vague and which could mean a million different things constitute a "common sensical belief in Purgatory.
G
GKC
Guest
I keep forgetting the irony button, too.Guess I’m more of a chicken or beef guy.
P
Peter_J
Guest
To be honest, I myself don’t participate on many forums (or sub-forums), be they described as “traditionalist” or whatever. The way I see it, I’m not trying to dialogue with as many people as possible … I’ve got at least 20 or 30 people that I converse with here, and that seems like enough to me – in fact even that can be pretty time consuming.Yea I get you. After all I am in the minority here
Yea guess that’s an idea. I’m really just trying to state a view as the question asked. You know, constructive debate. I would hope nobody is trying to convince anyone, just pure thought sharing.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Even though I was trying to end my contribution to this thread I must point out, they didn’t. Maybe I should add with early I meant the apostles, day to day things happening in the Bible and maybe let’s say 100 years later. I’m talking about the time of Christ. I am very well aware of every writing on it. I guess I should have been clear about my time frame. Which is, where it started, and if it started at Pentecost I expect to read about it be that Bible or even Apocrypha. Not some person who meditated later on and thought that’s what they meant.And, in a way, that’s what happened. Not the multiple-post barrage of Scripture quotations, mind you (after all, they didn’t really address your assertion that there was no evidence that, in the early Church, no one prayed for the dead), but the two posts that refuted your assertion with historical evidence. Those certainly looked like “constructive debate” – you made a claim, and the claim was rebutted.
Something like “and Jesus went to the top of the mountain to pray for the dead” would have convinced me in one fell swoop. Or anywhere where it is talked about.
But okay. I can end with, Hey, it doesn’t matter if you believe it. It’s not like not believing in Purgatory will add more time to your time in Purgatory or believing in it and you WILL go to hell if it doesn’t exist. Which is why I don’t really see the need to try and convince anyone. Just to see how people here understand the history
God bless
F
fnr
Guest
Purgatory does not need to be a place, but it is a process. Pope Benedict XVI recognized that. In fact, the notion of space and time doesn’t really make a lot of sense after death – spacetime is a property of our universe, not the spiritual world.
There is ample scriptural and historical evidence for purgatory/theosis, and the practice of praying for the dead.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 – The “foundation” each of us builds will be tested through fire; if someone’s work is burned up, they will suffer, but be saved “as only through fire.”
1 Corinthians 15:29 – Christians were being “baptized for the dead.”
In the catacombs of Rome, which went back to
2 Timothy 1:16-18 – Asks for mercy for the house of Onesiphorus, who is apparently dead. Verse 18 – may the Lord grant him mercy from the Lord on that day. The letter contains a prayer for a dead man.
Historically, looking at the Christian catacombs under Rome, which lasted from the first to fourth centuries, there is widespread written evidence of praying for the people buried there who were already dead. Those prayers are written on the walls of the catacombs.
There is ample scriptural and historical evidence for purgatory/theosis, and the practice of praying for the dead.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 – The “foundation” each of us builds will be tested through fire; if someone’s work is burned up, they will suffer, but be saved “as only through fire.”
1 Corinthians 15:29 – Christians were being “baptized for the dead.”
In the catacombs of Rome, which went back to
2 Timothy 1:16-18 – Asks for mercy for the house of Onesiphorus, who is apparently dead. Verse 18 – may the Lord grant him mercy from the Lord on that day. The letter contains a prayer for a dead man.
Historically, looking at the Christian catacombs under Rome, which lasted from the first to fourth centuries, there is widespread written evidence of praying for the people buried there who were already dead. Those prayers are written on the walls of the catacombs.
P
PJM
Guest
Actually I WOULD say “yes” conditionally.
Did Jesus choose to die so that our sins COULD [as in might be] forgiven] is the necessary addendum to the point your trying to make.
**Here friend is the problem [your’s not ours]
Protestant confuse what Jesus COULD have chosen to do WITH what Jesus ACTUALLY DID choose to do, regards one’s personal salvation…
More than 1,000 years after the facts had been Holy Spirit defined, declared and lived.
[Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Jn 20:19-23; Mt 28:19-20]
The Luther led “reformation” [revolution actually] as he is an Apostate catholic-priest in choosing to abandon his God in favor of making a god-in the image he Luther desired God to be; [Eph 4:1-7] knew full-well that in order to compete [actually over-through] the Catholic Church, that he HAD TO not only be “different than Catholicism” [why else would anyone else abandon their Catholic Faith?*** BUT ALSO he HAD to be be easier, less complex; and even [IMO] less profound; especially in his teachings on salvation*** Hence influenced by Wycliffe’s [another Apostate catholic-priest] the easily understood [BUT grossly wrong philosophies of “Propitiation” where in Jesus DID IT ALL, so ALL you have to do is declare that you love Jesus. Salvation [theoretically] accomplished; which then led to OSAS and other man-invented “salvation truths.” Confusing what God COULD have done with what our God [singular; and therefore can’t have different standards for you than He does for “Us”; ACTUALLY did choose to do
SO DO WE, HENCE OUR SHOCK AT THE PROTESTANT MAN-INVENTED PATHS TO SALVATION
What about FATHER ABRAHAM:shrug:[Gen. 16:15 & Lk 16:24]… and WHAT does this have to do with purgatory? I’m missing [no doubt MY fault] your point. Please clarify…
This to is another SHOCKER to us Catholics. Presuming that mortal man does NOT have to suffer for their sinfulness is extreme presumption [but certainly a whole lot easier and more salable]. It’s foolish in the extreme!
Take Up your Cross and Follow Me
** Phil.2: 8 “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke.14: **7 **Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” ** [which BTW, means cannot attain heaven]
EXCELLENT!So perhaps my friend you can answer a simple question for US that no other Protestant has been able to do; [or perhaps just choose not too?]
Having been blessed to teach the Catholic Faith for nearly 30 years now; it is perplexing that I [ME] could not find even one time in the bible where God: Yahweh or Jesus ever was 'OK" with, tolerate of, permitted or [heaven forbid]; approved of ANY competing religious faith beliefs. My friend perhaps you can point out to me, where I over looked such?
I personally struggle trying to grasp where the justification for Protestantism is biblically- found and on what basis it exist? Was Christ FAITH somehow insufficient?
God Bless you, pray much as will I,
Patrick [PJM]
T
twf
Guest
I hope you didn’t construe anything I said as a personal attack- that certainly wasn’t my intention. My apologies if so.
Earlier when Col. 1:24 came up in the discussion you asked whether it is even used in regards to purgatory. I wanted to clarify that my earlier posts on suffering with Christ and participating in His work of salvation were more general. The principle is, I think, foundational to understanding purgatory, but that’s only one aspect of it.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
Wow what a mouthful. I do appreciate the time that must have gone into this.
If I ask you is Jesus pure, holy and perfect. You would say yes. And I ask you did this pure, holy and perfect God suffer a death on a cross for our sins. You would say yes
Actually I WOULD say “yes” conditionally.
Did Jesus choose to die so that our sins COULD [as in might be] forgiven] is the necessary addendum to the point your trying to make.
That’s a very interesting topic to get into. John 3:16 I saw is a bit different in the NABRE but KJV and my Greek direct translation says a bit different. Maybe that’s the big difference we have. Just saying.
**Here friend is the problem [your’s not ours]
Protestant confuse what Jesus COULD have chosen to do WITH what Jesus ACTUALLY DID choose to do, regards one’s personal salvation…
I am not so sure. John 3:16 comes to mind again
More than 1,000 years after the facts had been Holy Spirit defined, declared and lived.
[Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Jn 20:19-23; Mt 28:19-20]
The Luther led “reformation” [revolution actually] as he is an Apostate catholic-priest in choosing to abandon his God in favor of making a god-in the image he Luther desired God to be; [Eph 4:1-7] knew full-well that in order to compete [actually over-through] the Catholic Church, that he HAD TO not only be “different than Catholicism” [why else would anyone else abandon their Catholic Faith? BUT ALSO he HAD to be be easier, less complex; and even [IMO] less profound; especially in his teachings on salvation Hence influenced by Wycliffe’s [another Apostate catholic-priest] the easily understood [BUT grossly wrong philosophies of “Propitiation” where in Jesus DID IT ALL, so ALL you have to do is declare that you love Jesus. Salvation [theoretically] accomplished; which then led to OSAS and other man-invented “salvation truths.” Confusing what God COULD have done with what our God [singular; and therefore can’t have different standards for you than He does for “Us”; ACTUALLY did choose to do
[COLOR=“blue”]I’m not so sure what you are getting at here. I would comment with a barrage of Bible verses but out of experience I know this won’t help. Just saying, any sane Protestant confession would have nothing but the Bible as a reference when taking on this subject. Maybe have a look **
Quote:
So putting an ant against a whale, what can the and really do, and with us against God it’s so much larger. I feel it comes forth as arrogant for man to feel he can do anything in relation to God
SO DO WE, HENCE OUR SHOCK AT THE PROTESTANT MAN-INVENTED PATHS TO SALVATION.
Can you elaborate? I get the idea we agree but somehow disagree. This confuses me
Quote:
And yes I know all those verses. It also says call no man your father but there when it is direct Jesus apparently meant it differently. Here when it’s very metaphorically it apparently means without a doubt purgatory
What about FATHER ABRAHAM[Gen. 16:15 & Lk 16:24]… and WHAT does this have to do with purgatory? I’m missing [no doubt MY fault] your point. Please clarify…
Nothing except taking on the form of debate you took. I always find it interesting when people take a form of debating contradicting other parts. This is the problem, Catholicism became so complex and intricate that you are bound to contradict yourself somewhere
Quote:
And oh, you added to my argument when you said Jesus made it possible for us to be saved. So if I suffer for my sins, apparently a lot worse then a crucifixion, but it came from God. Does that make sense. Im not so sure
This to is another SHOCKER to us Catholics. Presuming that mortal man does NOT have to suffer for their sinfulness is extreme presumption [but certainly a whole lot easier and more salable]. It’s foolish in the extreme!
I would ask you to please refrain from using this tone. If you can’t answer me then don’t. Just saying the opposite and saying my argument is foolish will get us nowhere. Rather be constructive and help me understand then
Take Up your Cross and Follow Me
Phil.2: 8 Luke.9 :23 .Mark.8: 34 Luke.9: 23 Luke.14: 7 [which BTW, means cannot attain heaven]
I’m not so sure. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a state of temporal punishment.
Quote:
And believe me, I’ve been doing a lot of research about various topics the past 2 years. I mean hours and hours. Your post didn’t shed new light. I’m a Protestant who can quote the Catholic Catechism to a very great extent. Yea, I’m bored a lot.
EXCELLENT! So perhaps my friend you can answer a simple question for US that no other Protestant has been able to do; [or perhaps just choose not too?]
Having been blessed to teach the Catholic Faith for nearly 30 years now; it is perplexing that I [ME] could not find even one time in the bible where God: Yahweh or Jesus ever was 'OK" with, tolerate of, permitted or [heaven forbid]; approved of ANY competing religious faith beliefs. My friend perhaps you can point out to me, where I over looked such?
Well that would be assuming I am not a Christian. Or am I not answering it correctly seeing no Protestant could? Hey Friend, I am just as much of a Christian as you are, I don’t even see the point of the question
I personally struggle trying to grasp where the justification for Protestantism is biblically- found and on what basis it exist? Was Christ FAITH somehow insufficient?
Interesting topic as that is the basis of the very existence of Protestants, but please elaborate. As it seems we agree more then you would like to admit.
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
Wow what a mouthful. I do appreciate the time that must have gone into this.
If I ask you is Jesus pure, holy and perfect. You would say yes. And I ask you did this pure, holy and perfect God suffer a death on a cross for our sins. You would say yes
Actually I WOULD say “yes” conditionally.
Did Jesus choose to die so that our sins COULD [as in might be] forgiven] is the necessary addendum to the point your trying to make.
That’s a very interesting topic to get into. John 3:16 I saw is a bit different in the NABRE but KJV and my Greek direct translation says a bit different. Maybe that’s the big difference we have. Just saying.
**Here friend is the problem [your’s not ours]
Protestant confuse what Jesus COULD have chosen to do WITH what Jesus ACTUALLY DID choose to do, regards one’s personal salvation…
I am not so sure. John 3:16 comes to mind again
More than 1,000 years after the facts had been Holy Spirit defined, declared and lived.
[Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Jn 20:19-23; Mt 28:19-20]
The Luther led “reformation” [revolution actually] as he is an Apostate catholic-priest in choosing to abandon his God in favor of making a god-in the image he Luther desired God to be; [Eph 4:1-7] knew full-well that in order to compete [actually over-through] the Catholic Church, that he HAD TO not only be “different than Catholicism” [why else would anyone else abandon their Catholic Faith? BUT ALSO he HAD to be be easier, less complex; and even [IMO] less profound; especially in his teachings on salvation Hence influenced by Wycliffe’s [another Apostate catholic-priest] the easily understood [BUT grossly wrong philosophies of “Propitiation” where in Jesus DID IT ALL, so ALL you have to do is declare that you love Jesus. Salvation [theoretically] accomplished; which then led to OSAS and other man-invented “salvation truths.” Confusing what God COULD have done with what our God [singular; and therefore can’t have different standards for you than He does for “Us”; ACTUALLY did choose to do
[COLOR=“blue”]I’m not so sure what you are getting at here. I would comment with a barrage of Bible verses but out of experience I know this won’t help. Just saying, any sane Protestant confession would have nothing but the Bible as a reference when taking on this subject. Maybe have a look
**Quote:
So putting an ant against a whale, what can the and really do, and with us against God it’s so much larger. I feel it comes forth as arrogant for man to feel he can do anything in relation to God
SO DO WE, HENCE OUR SHOCK AT THE PROTESTANT MAN-INVENTED PATHS TO SALVATION.
Can you elaborate? I get the idea we agree but somehow disagree. This confuses me
Quote:
And yes I know all those verses. It also says call no man your father but there when it is direct Jesus apparently meant it differently. Here when it’s very metaphorically it apparently means without a doubt purgatory
What about FATHER ABRAHAM[Gen. 16:15 & Lk 16:24]… and WHAT does this have to do with purgatory? I’m missing [no doubt MY fault] your point. Please clarify…
Nothing except taking on the form of debate you took. I always find it interesting when people take a form of debating contradicting other parts. This is the problem, Catholicism became so complex and intricate that you are bound to contradict yourself somewhere
Quote:
And oh, you added to my argument when you said Jesus made it possible for us to be saved. So if I suffer for my sins, apparently a lot worse then a crucifixion, but it came from God. Does that make sense. Im not so sure
This to is another SHOCKER to us Catholics. Presuming that mortal man does NOT have to suffer for their sinfulness is extreme presumption [but certainly a whole lot easier and more salable]. It’s foolish in the extreme!
I would ask you to please refrain from using this tone. If you can’t answer me then don’t. Just saying the opposite and saying my argument is foolish will get us nowhere. Rather be constructive and help me understand then
Take Up your Cross and Follow Me
Phil.2: 8 Luke.9 :23 .Mark.8: 34 Luke.9: 23 Luke.14: 7 [which BTW, means cannot attain heaven]
I’m not so sure. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a state of temporal punishment.
Quote:
And believe me, I’ve been doing a lot of research about various topics the past 2 years. I mean hours and hours. Your post didn’t shed new light. I’m a Protestant who can quote the Catholic Catechism to a very great extent. Yea, I’m bored a lot.
EXCELLENT! So perhaps my friend you can answer a simple question for US that no other Protestant has been able to do; [or perhaps just choose not too?]
Having been blessed to teach the Catholic Faith for nearly 30 years now; it is perplexing that I [ME] could not find even one time in the bible where God: Yahweh or Jesus ever was 'OK" with, tolerate of, permitted or [heaven forbid]; approved of ANY competing religious faith beliefs. My friend perhaps you can point out to me, where I over looked such?
Well that would be assuming I am not a Christian. Or am I not answering it correctly seeing no Protestant could? Hey Friend, I am just as much of a Christian as you are, I don’t even see the point of the question
I personally struggle trying to grasp where the justification for Protestantism is biblically- found and on what basis it exist? Was Christ FAITH somehow insufficient?
Interesting topic as that is the basis of the very existence of Protestants, but please elaborate. As it seems we agree more then you would like to admit.
A
Abu
Guest
There were no “Scriptures” readily available for many for over 1000 years until the printing press, and Jesus did not write a book – He founded His Catholic Church and that Church produced the Sacred Scriptures as part of Her teaching. Of course no one may falsify the Scriptures.
The problem of “Biblical Differences” arises from the loss of the reality that Christ did not give us the Bible but His Church, and She authorised and gave us the Sacred Scriptures and no one has any authority to remove or add any books.
The Missing Books of the Bible
FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
‘In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring, “These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God’s work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out.’
catholiceducation.org/en/…the-bible.html
There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.”
The tragedy of the scattering is the thousands of sects today all led by those who feel they know better than Christ and His Magisterium.
Failing to follow the Christ in His own Church has led to the false belief, among many others, that there is no Purgatory. Why should anyone believe a made-up set of opinions against the Christ?
The problem of “Biblical Differences” arises from the loss of the reality that Christ did not give us the Bible but His Church, and She authorised and gave us the Sacred Scriptures and no one has any authority to remove or add any books.
The Missing Books of the Bible
FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
‘In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring, “These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God’s work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out.’
catholiceducation.org/en/…the-bible.html
There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.”
The tragedy of the scattering is the thousands of sects today all led by those who feel they know better than Christ and His Magisterium.
Failing to follow the Christ in His own Church has led to the false belief, among many others, that there is no Purgatory. Why should anyone believe a made-up set of opinions against the Christ?
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it was written for former Catholics, but that was long before the Protestant Reformation. Those who leave the CC now do not necessarily deny Christ. Also, many of them do not even commit apostasy, since they never understood their faith in the first place. Their fault is that they did not study to show themselves approved, and never got past a childhood understanding of the faith.ACTUALLY NOT:blush:
Please read my post #130 below to actually discover the truth
God Bless you [and may he grant you understanding and forgiveness]. Please read
Heb. 6:4-8 written for FORMER Catholics
[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. [7] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. [8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned."
Our choices; our actions ALWAYS have consequences
Pray much
Patrick [PJM]
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Yes.
Yes.
But definitely nothing unclean can enter heaven. Purgatory doctrine is that the unclean may be cleaned and thus can enter heaven. If you are unclean, definitely you cannot enter heaven.
Because of the mercy of God. The unclean can be cleaned, so instead of being unable to enter heaven, now after being cleaned in purgatory, he can enter heaven. You can use the word ‘purified’ too.
It makes sense to me so I am quite agreeing to the Magisterium. Of course the verse does not stand alone. It would be a folly to think just by this verse alone one can derives purgatory from it. It has to be read together with other verses in the Bible, like 1 Cor3:15 for example.
Sometimes a lot of people here like to jump on a verse in isolation and said, “Ha, you cannot do that.” But sometimes when it suits them, they would jump on a verse in isolation and said, “Ha, I can do this.”
M
MichaelP3
Guest
And it’s interesting you brought Luther up (Although I struggle to see the connection to the Anglican Lambeth Conference) as the reason for dropping the Apocrypha. Here Cardinal Cayetan, you should know him, the very person who opposed Luther mainly through the reformation said.
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage”
Interesting that one of the clearest minds Catholicism ever had and many believe if he lived longer, he would have become Pope.
Point is, if Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, then why is the idea of the Bible from the time of Jerome different to the Catholic Bible today. We have the same Bible as Jerome translated. Nothing Catholic about this.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I can add this just to see where we come fromAnd it’s interesting you brought Luther up (Although I struggle to see the connection to the Anglican Lambeth Conference) as the reason for dropping the Apocrypha. Here Cardinal Cayetan, you should know him, the very person who opposed Luther mainly through the reformation said.
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage”
Interesting that one of the clearest minds Catholicism ever had and many believe if he lived longer, he would have become Pope.
Point is, if Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, then why is the idea of the Bible from the time of Jerome different to the Catholic Bible today. We have the same Bible as Jerome translated. Nothing Catholic about this.
pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-the-apocrypha-scripture/
I’ll paste the conclusion if you don’t go through the effort in reading it, maybe just as a taster.
Conclusion
The above seven reasons build a compelling case that the Apocrypha should not be regarded as Scripture. All of this becomes very problematic for the Roman Catholic Church which has made a supposedly infallible declaration regarding the canonicity of the Apocrypha, a declaration which cannot be retracted. But what happens when the facts of history undermine the dogmatic position taken by Rome? And what is left of her infallibility if one of her “infallible” declarations is shown to be false?
To summarize: the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) did not accept the Apocrypha. Neither did Jesus or the writers of the New Testament. Neither did Jerome, major theologians, and even Roman Catholic scholars up until the time of the Reformation. It wasn’t until 1546 at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was officially and infallibly declared to be Scripture, as even admitted to by Roman Catholic sources. The Apocrypha cannot pass the test of propheticity and certain books even contain doctrinal and historical errors. This, of course, is not to say the Apocrypha is not useful. It certainly is. But it is not Scripture. And Protestants are in good standing with the historical evidence and historic position of the Church when they refuse to acknowledge the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.
A
Abu
Guest
It was stated merely as a fact, like his condemnation of contraception.
Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Sept 17, 2010 (EWTN):
The Catholic Bible has 46 books in the Old Testament, the Protestant Bible has 39 books in the O.T. Both have 27 books in the New Testament. Martin Luther removed 7 books from the O.T. when he wrote his German Bible. The first Bible translated from Hebrew & Greek by St. Jerome in 400 AD had all 46 OT + 27 NT as did the Latin Guttenburg Bible of the 15th c. Only Protestant Bibles from 16th c. to today are missing the 7 books, Catholics call the Deuterocanonical and Protestants call Apocrypha. They are Baruch, Maccabees 1 & 2, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Wisdom. These books were written during the Babylonian captivity and Diaspora and thus were written in Greek but by Jews outside Palestine and divinely inspired nevertheless. Jewish leaders removed them from their Bible in 100 AD merely because they were not originally written in Hebrew. But 2/3 of the world’s Jews at that time (3rd c. BC, from 250-100 BC) lived outside the Holy Land and were more literate in Greek than Hebrew. Christians from the time of the Apostles and during Jesus’ time knew and accepted these 7 books, hence their presence in St. Jerome’s Bible and every other Bible until Luther. IRONICALLY these 7 books were in the ORIGINAL King James Bible but Parliament removed them in subsequent editions. [My emphasis].
Fr John A Hardon in *The Catholic Catechism *points out that the rabbinical school at Jamnia circa A.D. 100 redefined the canon of the Old testament for the Jews, leaving out the seven books from their Palestinian canon because not conforming to the Pentateuch, or written after the time of Esdra (circa 400 B.C.)or not in Hebrew in Palestine, and “made a fence around it.”
No one else has any authority to change what Christ’s Catholic Church has declared, but throughout history others have tried to exert their own self-will.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I’m struggling here. Luther and then you talk about Anglicans. It’s pretty basic to know you should use Luther when referring to Lutherans.
And what’s the problem. Luther would agree he is just as fallible as any other teacher be that Catholic or not.
I don’t see the relevance with that answer and get the idea you didn’t even read my reply. Maybe read it again if you did.
Jerome had those books yes. If you read it you know we don’t deny it. But he did categorise them different. Today the Protestant don’t have it in their Bible but I can still walk into any Christian bookstore here and buy the Apocrypha and read as a good read.( I would have no problem with them in our Bible, but they would be more of an addendum like in the case of Jerome.) Which I did. Nobody is hiding them. Just referring to them as the Church Fathers did.
Friend, check your history! Not just excerpts written by biased Priests.
G
GKC
Guest
I don’t have a large sample to judge from, but that last doesn’t sound like you.I’m struggling here. Luther and then you talk about Anglicans. It’s pretty basic to know you should use Luther when referring to Lutherans.
And what’s the problem. Luther would agree he is just as fallible as any other teacher be that Catholic or not.
I don’t see the relevance with that answer and get the idea you didn’t even read my reply. Maybe read it again if you did.
Jerome had those books yes. If you read it you know we don’t deny it. But he did categorise them different. Today the Protestant don’t have it in their Bible but I can still walk into any Christian bookstore here and buy the Apocrypha and read as a good read.( I would have no problem with them in our Bible, but they would be more of an addendum like in the case of Jerome.) Which I did. Nobody is hiding them. Just referring to them as the Church Fathers did.
Friend, check your history! Not just excerpts written by biased Priests.
G
GKC
Guest
I understand. And I can move from irenic to tactfully offensive, when pushed, myself.
I am a long time advocate for all around reading. Makes the library unwieldy, but gathering data from all angles helps give a holographic-like perspective. Adds depth. No doubt one man’s scholar is another man’s biased source, to be sure.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Thanks for that.
Maybe what I more clearly should say what my exact thoughts were while typing that.
I quoted Cayetan (The chief opponent to Luther and a very respected Cardinal) and Jerome (We all know who he was). And here I receive an excerpt from a rather unknown Priest basically just stating “they removed it” without even referring to what I said. And the question isn’t with, were they there. But what was thought of them by respected minds like a named.
- Status