• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Sincere Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

secretdawn

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2003
542
15
44
Missouri
Visit site
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Why is the Pope called the pope, what is the purpose of him, and do you think he is better then us.

This is my understanding (i could be wrong though):
Pope comes from the latin Pontif, meaning bridge, and the pope is the mortal bridge to God.
But Jesus is the only bridge to God, i thought?

Can anyone explain?
 

SamInService

Active Member
Jan 28, 2004
192
8
NY
✟362.00
Faith
Catholic
A good question, my friend. Actually, the word pope comes not from pontiff, but from the Greek pappas, meaning "father." Indeed, as Catholics we often refer to the Pope as the "Holy Father." This is simply a title of his which distinguishes him as our spiritual father, our guide in the Holy Spirit. There are several justifications for this, both common-sensical and scriptural. Scripturally, there is nothing wrong with a person taking on the title of our spiritual father; take a look at 1 Cor. 4:15, where Paul notes "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (RSV)

To answer your final question, and referring to the title "Holy Father," it does not refer to the holiness of Pope in terms of the question of his salvation; in that sense, no, we do not think that he is "better" than us. His merits as a Christian is a question that God, and God alone, will answer. Nowhere in Catholic teaching will you find it stated that the Pope is assured of salvation any more than any of the rest of us. What it does suggest is that the person of the Pope succeeds to the primacy of the Church, a responsibility to lead the Church and all of her faithful members in the true battle against the forces of evil. The Pope is a sinner in the same way that all humans are sinners. However, he does have a special responsibility, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to provide leadership to the Church.

I hope that this helps.

Many blessings,
Sam
 
Upvote 0

secretdawn

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2003
542
15
44
Missouri
Visit site
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
It does...(it shows for one that my school needs new history books!)

can you tell me more about the pope and the "church" like...

why pray to mary, and the saints, cause isn't that holding false idols?

and are the hail mary's representitive of the time when you paid for your sins with a fine and eventually could pre-purchase sin allowances?

and why are the churches so decadent? couldn't that money be better used elsewhere? is there biblical reasoning for this?

where is the biblical reasoning for confession (not that this isn't healthy for anyone to talk about their misdoings, but...)

why celabicy? not that it's a bad thing to choose that for God, but why not have the choice, why can't you be a priest and have a family too?
 
Upvote 0

SamInService

Active Member
Jan 28, 2004
192
8
NY
✟362.00
Faith
Catholic
You are asking marvelous questions, thank you. I am looking forward to responding to them, and to clearing up some of these misconceptions. However, it will be a couple of days before I can do so, as I must run along. But I promise you, I will.

Thank you again for asking such good questions.

Peace in Christ,
Sam
 
Upvote 0

Mulutka

Saved
Dec 17, 2003
391
25
45
British Columbia
✟23,172.00
Faith
Catholic
Do you know very much about the significance of stain glass windows? They were a way for peasants to understand the Bible (same thing with the majority of Gothic sculupture). Since most peasants were illiterate, they could 'read' Scripture via art.

I absolutly love the history of architecture and stain glass windows. I think Abbot Suger (the man who promoted the use of stain glass windows early on) was extremly wise. He wanted peasants, who were living at this time in a very depressed state, to be have a refuge where they could experience the grandeur of God and God's creations. He believed that the closest form man could understand he brillance of God was via light--> hence the use of stain glass windows. When peasants entered churches they were confronted with an amazing display of light and biblical images that they could understand (since they couldn't read). They also were able to get "out of their skin" for a while and experience beauty that they would otherwise be unable to see (since they were peasants, not noble men).

It goes without saying that the church corrupted Abbot Suger's desire to create a 'heaven' (a mini paradise/utopia) on earth for peasansts to experience... of course bishops' love for gold and fancy objects got out of hand, and the rest is history (abuse of power is just one of many human weakness afterall). But it must be remembered that the Catholic
church had noble expections and desires before all of this abuse--> and the common man *did* profit greatly from the art in the church as well.
 
Upvote 0

Mulutka

Saved
Dec 17, 2003
391
25
45
British Columbia
✟23,172.00
Faith
Catholic
secretdawn said:
Why is the Pope called the pope, what is the purpose of him, and do you think he is better then us.

I think that we need to make a distinction between "respect" (awe) and "betterness" (I can't think of the right word.. :sorry: )

I am pretty well awe-struck when I think about all the pope has contributed to mankind and the God's ministry. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I do think that he is different than me. Not 'better' than me, simply 'different'. The role of being a leader carries great weight and discipline: for this fact I respect the pope as I respect world leaders. The fact that he has complely, fully and totally devoted his life to being God's intrument makes me respect him even more. Although I have given my life to God I haven't sacrificed and lead such an extra-ordinary/above and beyond life as the Pope--> this is why I am 'awe-struck'.
 
Upvote 0

KennySe

Habemus Papam!
Aug 6, 2003
5,450
253
61
Visit site
✟29,554.00
Faith
Catholic
secretdawn said:
why pray to mary, and the saints, cause isn't that holding false idols?

IF we were to hold to false idols, we would need to woship Mary as divinity. We do not.
If we were to hold to false idols, we would need to worship statues as though they are divinity. We do not.

From the FAQ thread http://www.christianforums.com/t53299

Mary and the Communion of Saints [by Steadfast, post #8]

You could think of Mary as the highest member of the Communion of Saints in Heaven and on Earth. The Saints in Heaven, (The Church Triumphant) unite with us in our prayer to The Father, through The Son in unity with the Holy Spirit. It works the same with the Saints on Earth, (The Church Militant) That's you and me. You ask for my prayers and I pray in UNION with you. Is it necessary for you to ask me to pray for you for God to hear your prayers? No. Are you praying to me when you ask for my prayers? No. Why do we pray for one another then? The answer is because Scripture commissions us to do so.

Now, through our Baptism in Christ, the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant make up the Mystical Body of Christ. Since the Body of Christ can not be divided by death, Catholics do consider the Saints in Heaven to be alive in Christ and not dead, we are simply asking those who live with the Lord in Heaven to join us in prayer.

To sum up, the Church invites us to include Mary and the Saints and the Angels in our prayer to The Father, through The Son in unity with the Holy Spirit. Together with Mary and the Saints and the Angels we worship God and He alone do we worship.

Here are some Bible verses for you to read, as you recall that the One Body of Believers is ONE Church that cannot be divided, not even by earthly death.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27
Galatians 6:2
Romans 15:30
2 Thessalonians 1:11
Ephesians 6:18-19
Revelation 5:8
Revelation 6:9-11
Hebrews 13:7

where is the biblical reasoning for confession (not that this isn't healthy for anyone to talk about their misdoings, but...)

Realize that the Apostles did not write everything down. If they did, we'd have 11 Gospel accounts by the 11 Apostles, instead we have 2 accounts from Apostles (Matthew and John); 1 account from Mark, disciple of Peter; 1 account from Luke, who interviewed eyewitnesses (many believe one of the eyewitnesses interviewed was Jesus' Mother, Blessed Mary.)

But, you asked for Bible passages :), so...

John 20:23
2 Corinthians 5:17-20
James 5:13-16
Acts 20:28
Acts 13:3
1 Timothy 4:14

And here are some other verses. (perhaps some overlap with the above)
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html

And if you give any weight to the words of Early Church Bishops.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a36.htm
..
 
Upvote 0

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria
Apr 12, 2002
8,338
624
Visit site
✟13,555.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Do Catholics consider this universal Church to be the Catholic Church?
The short answer is yes. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the Church established by Christ. That is why it never refers itself as a denomination. Let's see if this helps explain our perspective.

We believe that in the beginning of the Church, the Apostles of Christ were entrusted with the message of the Gospel. There were no New Testament Scriptures for them to quote, for they themselves wrote them for the True Author, the Holy Spirit. Yet even without New Covenant Scriptures, the Apostles taught the true and inerrant Faith. Were you to have conversed with Paul, there would have been no debating with him what he "really meant" when he wrote some passage in one of the Epistles. Christ said of the Apostles, "He who listens to you, listens to me. He who rejects you, rejects me." Later, St. Peter said to Christ in John 6, "Where else shall we go, for you have the words of eternal life." Jesus sent His Apostles out to preach those same words of eternal life, and He gave them His Spirit to ensure that it was done correctly.

One instance where the guidance of the Holy Spirit shone through was recorded in Acts Chapter 15. The Early Christian Church was faced with a dilemma: were those gentiles who had not been circumcised after their conversion saved? There was a great debate among the faithful, which called those chosen by God as shepards into action.

The Council of Jerusalem was convened and the leaders of the Church gathered and discussed this problem. After reaching their conclusion, they announced it with the following words, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." (Acts 15:28).

We see two things here. First we see the Apsotles in collegiality proclaiming what seems "good to the Holy Spirit." Second we see what they pronounce is not only a burden, but is in fact obligatory, the faithful must obey the command which came from the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. A letter is sent proclaiming this to all the Church as the true Faith and obedience is expected. From that point forward, all who teach that doctrine of the Faith can be assured that is the true Gospel. Before the Council of Jerusalem there was legitimate discussion as to what the true faith was, now there could only be submission, for the Holy Spirit had spoken.

Catholics believe that the Bishops of today are the successors of the Apostles and those the Apostles ordained to lead the new Churches of the world that were and are being founded. When they speak in collegiality, that is together as in a council, we believe that the Holy Spirit protects them from proclaiming error, as promised in Matthew 16:18 and further signified in 1 Timothy 3:15 and Ephesians 2:20. Through the "pillar and foundation of truth," and built on the "foundation of the Apostles, with Christ being the cornerstone" we believe the teachings of Christ were preserved.

End part 1...
Part 2...

This unity of the Bishops is symbolized and realized through Peter's successor, the Bishop of Rome (Matthew 16:18). Peter was the only Apostle given the Keys of Heaven and the threefold pastoral commission of John 20:15-19 by Jesus. This didn't mean Peter could not sin, as Paul's rebuke in Galatians(?) clearly shows, what it meant was Peter was given authority in pastoral matters. Among the Church's Bishops, Peter was the greatest among equals, the shepard of the other shepards, keeping them in collegiality and unity as a part of his Christian ministry. This is what the Pope, Peter's successor, does today. His inerrancy in a very rare set of circumstances flows directly from the inerrancy of the Church as a whole, and is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless,

Neal
 
Upvote 0

ps139

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!
Sep 23, 2003
15,088
818
New Jersey
Visit site
✟45,407.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
secretdawn said:
and are the hail mary's representitive of the time when you paid for your sins with a fine and eventually could pre-purchase sin allowances??
Hi Dawn :)

I do not know the origin of the Hail Mary prayer, but its first half is composed straight from Scripture. "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you." was said by the Angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:28. Later, in Luke 1:42, we see Elizabeth greet Mary with "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb (Jesus)." I do not know the origins of the second part "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death," but it is basically asking Our Lord's mother to pray for us to Him, now and at the hour of our death.

Also, the Catholic Church has never taught that you could pay to have your sins forgiven. I've never even heard of a pre-purchase sin allowance...anyway, indulgences were abused by some in the Church, but abuse is the key word - they were only meant as a contribution to the Church, a donation of work or money (good works) which would impart grace to the repentant Christian. Know that if an unrepentant person bought or worked for an indulgence, it has no effect. I'm sure someone else here can provide the specifics of indulgences, what I've said is unfortunately about all that I know. I hope this helps clear some things up.

God Bless!!
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟65,355.00
Faith
Catholic
secretdawn said:
It does...(it shows for one that my school needs new history books!)
Hi secretdawn :)

It is so nice to see you come and ask questions such as these . . and yes, I have to agree with you that some (perhaps many) history books need to be rewritten.

I think that what you will find, which many of us converts have also found as we began to ask questions, is that there is a lot of misinformation and misundertandings out there . . so I am very glad you are asking. :)

can you tell me more about the pope and the "church" like...

why pray to mary, and the saints, cause isn't that holding false idols?
Others have spoken to this already, but I just want to emphasize that no, this is not the same as holding false idols . .

An idol in the Old Testament is a statue that is, itself, a god . . that particular statue was the god they worshipped . .not just representative of a god . .

The statues that Catholics use are not idols . .we do not worshipi a statue . . we do not worship what they represent . .they remind us of that person, and thus of God as this person is so closely related to God . . You cannot think of Mary without also thinking about her Son Jesus and God . .

One can rightly say that we "pray" to Mary and the Saints . . but one would be very wrong to understand that by using that word, "pray", that we are "worshipping" them . .this is because Catholics use the word "pray" differently than Protestants do . . we do not tie it to worship in any way . . it means to us to make a request of someone, anyone, for something . . and we ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us, to interceede for us to God . . so, we can rightly say that we "pray" to Mary and the Saints to ask them to "pray" for us and never, even remotely, come close to worshipping them . ..

There is a very big cultural difference between Protestants and Catholics when it comes to how certain words are used. . . and it is very important to be aware of this . ..

and are the hail mary's representitive of the time when you paid for your sins with a fine and eventually could pre-purchase sin allowances?
This question actually deals with 2 issues . .

First, No, the Hail Mary did not arise during, neither is it representative of, the time when a certain overzealous monk, named Tetzel, was "selling" indulgences . . The Hail Mary developed over time with parts of it seen in the 1st millenium of christianity. It came to substitue for the Prayer of the Hours which religious monks performed during the day, as the laymens prayer that could be prayed in the same manner. . this was well before Luther and his issues with Tetzel (which is what the nailing of the thesis on the Church door was all about) . .

Second, as mentioned by another poster, the Church never, ever taught that one could buy an indulgence and have all their sins forgiven . . never . . there was some corruptness in the Church, and a particular monk, Tetzel, got carried away, and when he came to Luther's area, Luther challenged him . .

Something interesting that I was reminded of the other night in class . . The way someone one invited someone else to a debate was by putting up a notice, a thesis, on the Church door . . this was not something unusual, it was very common . .Luther did nothing out of the ordinary, he did something very common . .and it invited Tetzel, or anyone else for that matter, to debate the issue with him . . I don't think Tetzel took him up on it, but I don't remember . . Luther was not challenging the Church when he did this . . he was challenging one man . .



and why are the churches so decadent? couldn't that money be better used elsewhere? is there biblical reasoning for this?
Decadent? I would not use that term . . going into an ornate church turns one's mind to beauty and to God . . my uncle's Orthodox Church was made of polished white marble inside, huge beautiful stained glass windows which told the story of the Gospel, they held your attention, you could not escape the reality of Jesus, of His message, of His death and resurrection . .you were surrounded by it in full color beauty! The acoustics were set up in such a way (a round domed sanctuary) where the barest whisper from the priest could be heard as though he was speaking right into your ear . .which made you loook up to see a beautiful huge icon of Christ above you . .

The beauty and the architecture serves a purpose . . have you ever been inside a beautiful Catholic Church and sat there in silence in prayer? There was a change in the last several decades where many churces were stripped of this beauty . . I believe this has harmed the spirituality of Cathilics as it denied them this beauty to stir their soul in contemplation of God and His goodness . .

It is a matter of persepctive . .

where is the biblical reasoning for confession (not that this isn't healthy for anyone to talk about their misdoings, but...)
There is a lot that could be said on this, but as my response is getting fairly long, I will keep this brief for now.

2 real quick . . one is that Jesus gave His apostles the power to forgive sins . .


Joh 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

And that we are to confess our sins to one another


Jam 5:16
Confessyour faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.


The Early Church practiced priestly confession and forgiveness from the beginning . .


why celabicy? not that it's a bad thing to choose that for God, but why not have the choice, why can't you be a priest and have a family too?
This is a decision of the Catholic Church that can be changed . . it is not a dogma. . . Jesus gave to Peter first, and then later to the rest of the Apostles, the ability to bind and loose . .this is a rabbinical binding and loosing, of setting upon believers requirements in the practice and living of their faith . . and it has seemed good to the Catholic Church for some time now, to require its priests, in the Latin Rite, to not marry . .this is for the good of the Church, and the good of the flock that particular priest is over . . Paul speaks of the gift of celibacy, and how good it is . . A married priest is devided . . In the Eastern Orthodox Church, priests are allowed to marry, but a Bishop cannot be married. My uncle was married, and it does divide you. A celibate priest can much more effectively tend to the needs of his flock . .

The Church can change this if it sees it needs to . . it is not something written in stone. . . :)

I hope this has helped and not been too long winded! :)

Please ask and ask and ask . . you will find you have more and more questions, so please don't hesitate to ask!



Peace in Him!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDIrish
Upvote 0

ProCommunioneFacior

I'm an ultra-traditionalist, run for your life ;)
Oct 30, 2003
11,154
562
44
Mesa, Arizona
Visit site
✟36,647.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Another reason why Catholic and Orthodox churches are ornate in appearance is because it is the House of God. Catholics and Orthodox believe that Jesus is truly present there, it is his abode, his dwelling place. In the OT God told the Jewish people to ornately build the Ark of the Covenant, which is where he dwelt. Also the Temple which Solomon built was absolutely beautiful, because it was where God dwelt.

There have been many people that have had moments of conversion because of the beauty that resides in these beautifully built churches, a conversion of a soul is more than worth it to me.

Having said all of that, the Catholic Church does spend the majority of its money in helping the downtrodden, whether it be through homeless shelters, hospitals, missionaries, etc.
 
Upvote 0

SamInService

Active Member
Jan 28, 2004
192
8
NY
✟362.00
Faith
Catholic
Hi Secretdawn--

I promised that I would write again, and so I am doing now. However, Thereselittleflower answered your questions very beautifully, so I really have nothing to add. Please know, however, that any questions that you have are most welcome here, and there are any number of people who will be happy to answer them.

Peace in Christ,
Sam
 
Upvote 0

Bastoune

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,283
47
52
New York, NY, USA
✟1,694.00
Faith
Catholic
Mulutka said:
Do you know very much about the significance of stain glass windows? They were a way for peasants to understand the Bible (same thing with the majority of Gothic sculupture). Since most peasants were illiterate, they could 'read' Scripture via art.

I absolutly love the history of architecture and stain glass windows. I think Abbot Suger (the man who promoted the use of stain glass windows early on) was extremly wise. He wanted peasants, who were living at this time in a very depressed state, to be have a refuge where they could experience the grandeur of God and God's creations. He believed that the closest form man could understand he brillance of God was via light--> hence the use of stain glass windows. When peasants entered churches they were confronted with an amazing display of light and biblical images that they could understand (since they couldn't read). They also were able to get "out of their skin" for a while and experience beauty that they would otherwise be unable to see (since they were peasants, not noble men).

It goes without saying that the church corrupted Abbot Suger's desire to create a 'heaven' (a mini paradise/utopia) on earth for peasansts to experience... of course bishops' love for gold and fancy objects got out of hand, and the rest is history (abuse of power is just one of many human weakness afterall). But it must be remembered that the Catholic
church had noble expections and desires before all of this abuse--> and the common man *did* profit greatly from the art in the church as well.
What is more, the building of a church back in the Middle Ages, provided EMPLOYMENT to workers who needed to provide for their families. At the same time, putting their hearts, bodies and souls into constructing places of worship was indeed a very spiritual experience for all involved... "Worship God with your bodies" as Paul says, "as a living sacrifice."

Cathedrals and and churches created a boom in medieval economy, attracting pilgrims to cities, and thus merchants, traders, artisans, etc. It created jobs and built up the Christian community.

As for the "decadent art" most of that was gifts to the Church by the wealthy. You don't really turn down a gift, especially not one with a spiritual sense to it, and as Mulutka mentioned above, they like the stained-glass windows, were inspirational, and told stories from the Bible, which most peasants could not read themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mulutka
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
24,933
16,375
60
Sydney, Straya
✟1,577,829.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Dear Secretdawn,

the title "pope" is not exclusive to the Catholic church but is also the title given to the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox in the see of Alexandria, currently held by Pope Shenouda III. As others have already pointed out, "pope" simply means "father" coming from the Greek "papas". In fact my father/confessor Father George here in Thessaloniki, is known affectionately to his spiritual children as "Pappa Yiorgi", so it seems he is pope too :)

John.
 
Upvote 0

Bastoune

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2003
1,283
47
52
New York, NY, USA
✟1,694.00
Faith
Catholic
Well, there are more than that different. It was actually Martin Luther who took them out of the canonized Bible!!!

Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, parts of Daniel and Esther, were part of the Greek translation of the OT, written by the diaspora Jews. These books are called "deuterocanonical" .

The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was the accepted Greek Bible of the Jews living in Palestine and elsewhere for well over a hundred years before Jesus’ birth. Both Jews and Christians accepted the Septuagint (with the seven deuterocanonical books) until A.D. 90 (by this time, many of the Apostles had died and most of the New Testament had been written) when Jewish leaders, fearful of the messianic prophecies contained in these books, decided to exclude them. Their reasoning was that either Hebrew was not the original language of the texts (2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Daniel 13-14) or that (in most cases) the original Hebrew texts were not extant (Judith, Baruch, Sirach, and 1 Maccabees). By excluding those books, they did away with many messianic prophecies which seemed to support that Jesus was the messiah. This new version became known as the Palestine Canon.

The NT writers alluded to several deuterocanonical works, as did the early Church: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
http://www.catholic-defense.com/otcanon.htm

In the dead sea scrolls we have (fragments of) manuscripts of Sirach and Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic. In fact study indicated that deuterocanonical books were written either in Hebrews or Aramaic or Greek (refer to Table 2). Among the 39 books (or 24 in Jewish counting) Daniel 2:4-7, 28 and Ezra 4:8 – 6:18; 7:12-26, were also written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, and all New Testament books were written in Greek. Language is definitely not a criteria to determine canonicity.

For comparison, the oldest manuscript of the Jewish scripture is the Dead Sea Scrolls but Esther is missing. Certainly it is not a reason to drop Esther from the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls also include deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Sirach and Letter of Jeremiah) and apocryphal books (Jubilee, Enoch and Psalm 151). Furthermore we have the testimonies from the first Christians that their copies of Scripture had deuterocanonical books. 1 Clement (written c 96 AD) quotes from Wisdom of Solomon (Chapters 3 & 27) and Judith (Chapter 55). In his epistle to the Magnesians (Chapter 3) Ignatius (died c. 107 AD), bishop of Antioch quoted from Susanna (or Daniel 13). Polycarp (died c. 156) in his epistle (chapter 10) quoted Tobit. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 115 to 202) quoted from Baruch as part of Jeremiah (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 35:1) and from Greek chapters of Daniel (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapters 5:2 and 26:3).
 
Upvote 0

KC Catholic

Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A
Feb 5, 2002
4,010
76
58
Overland Park, KS
✟29,387.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
secretdawn said:
thanks guys so sorry it took so long, i couldn't find my thread lol

you answered my questions for the most part, i of course will cross check them with a bible when i get a chance...

but why is the catholic bible different...i hear there are 2 extra books.
Actually, the Protestant bible is different - some versions are missing 7 books that were apart of the original cannon - which is the version Catholics use.

What is missing is commonly refered to as the apocrapha (Catholics call them "the deuterocanonical books"), which are jewish texts that some of the New Testament passages actually reference.


Here is a great article explaining the differences
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

I know you are not arguing against the Catholic bible - so don't take the article below the wrong way. I just though it was good reading and it may answer some of your questions. It's posted in charity not to offend.

Peace!

Just a snippet:



People don't talk much about the deuterocanon these days. The folks who do are mostly Christians, and they usually fall into two general groupings: Catholics - who usually don't know their Bibles very well and, therefore, don't know much about the deuterocanonical books, and Protestants - who may know their Bibles a bit better, though their Bibles don't have the deuterocanonical books in them anyway, so they don't know anything about them either. With the stage thus set for informed ecumenical dialogue, it's no wonder most people think the deuterocanon is some sort of particle weapon recently perfected by the Pentagon.

The deuterocanon (ie. "second canon") is a set of seven books - Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther - that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically refer to them by the mildly pejorative term "apocrypha." This group of books is called "deuterocanonical" not (as some imagine) because they are a "second rate" or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.