What are some common misconceptions about Catholicism?

[Davidnic]

If you'd like a short list:

Catholic Pray to Mary (and the saints) (QuantaCura points out below that we do pray and we don't worship. If you want a deeper explaniation of the concepts of Dulia and Latria here is a link )
The reality is we ask her to pray for us as you would a friend or family member.

Catholics are not allowed to read the bible on their own
In fact we are encouraged to do so. Reading Scripture is considered one of the highest forms of prayer.

The Pope can never be wrong and can not sin
Not true. The doctrine of infallibility and the concept of imbecability are often confused. I think this was addressed earlier and it needs more space. If you want more on this one just ask.

Catholics place greater weight on tradition than Scripture
(The truth is that they are two sides on the same coin, so to speak. They do not contradict each other. There is nothing in tradition that is not in Scripture in some form)

Catholics worship statues
The fact is that God has sanctified the human form. We do not worship an image as if it was a god. This is what the pagans did and what the commadment is against. We use images and statues as reminders. Much like a picture of a loved one. People are visual and these things call the mind to glorify God. If they did not then we would cast them away.

Catholics believe that works alone can get you to heaven.
Not true. Fatih, true faith leads us to works that then bring about greater faith. In the same way a person who does good is led toward faith in the author of all good, who is God. The act of feeding the humgry (for example) works in the soul because it is an act of Christ.Faith and works are, again, two sides of the same coin. Together they are the two legs that move the person toward Christ.

Catholics believe that a priest forgives sin and that you can not turn to God to do so.
Catholics believe that God forgives sin. Christ gave his apostles the power to forgive sin and confession is one of the outward signs of God working through his church. There is alot more to expalin confession that won't fit in a short list. ask if you want to know more.

The Rosary is worship of Mary
The rosary, probably viewed by non-catholics as the signature Catholic prayer. (Catholics view the mass and the Eucharist as our signature prayer, if we'd even use those words.) Is a series of prayers that move os through the mysteries of Christs life and the glorious mystery of redemption. It, as all devotions to Mary have the purpose of leading us to a deeper understanding and relationship with Christ.

If you go through the mysteries of the rosary, they are focused on Christ and his life. Mary enters through her relationship to Christ ans her motherly love for all of His children. Mary, as the mother of God, guides us through the rosary to he Son. I say it is Mary taking us by the hand and saying, "Come with me and know my Son better. See Him through my eyes, that love Him so much."

The Pope is head of the Church and not Christ

Nope. It is Christ. That is just simple.

The Catholic Church believes that all people are saved, even if they do not believe in Christ

We believe that God has placed seeds of light and truth in every religion. But these seed are on rocky ground. They sprout but with no depth of soil they die. Only, the true soil. Christ. Can give eternal results. We do say there is no salvation outside the church, but we do not say how far that church goes in Gods eyes. What we say, without reservation is that all that is good in other faiths can only come to salvation through Christ. That is beyond doubt. How God choses to do that is sometimes not revealed to us.

The Church does not evangelize

We are told directly(numbers are from the Catechism):

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

849 The missionary mandate. "Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men":

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord's missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit." The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on." Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"; that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth.

Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.


Wow, did I say short. Sorry about that. But it is a short list. There are alot of others, but these are the main ones I could think of at the moment.

 

[QuantaCura]

Catholic Pray to Mary (and the saints)
The reality is we ask her to pray for us as you would a friend or family member.

We do pray to them--the Hail Mary is a prayer--it's just that people need to remember that prayer does not equal worship. To pray simply means to ask. For example, in a civil case, the plaintiff will pray to the judge for relief. This is not worshipping the judge.

 

[Davidnic]

We do pray to them--the Hail Mary is a prayer--it's just that people need to remember that prayer does not equal worship. To pray simply means to ask. For example, in a civil case, the plaintiff will pray to the judge for relief. This is not worshipping the judge.

True indeed. The difference between veneration and worship (Dulia and Latria). Prayer is just the best word we have in english. I'll edit that to correct my misuse of words. Thanks much.

 

[dhuisjen2]

Thanks Davidnic for stepping up to the plate here.

I think the answers I got already regarding "papal infalibility" and "the immaculate conception" have expanded my understanding. If anything remains on those it is for me to have documentation to refer to when using those perspectives in teaching.

The questions that remained open for me (from posts 36, 49 and 50 in this thread) were simply:

What limitations does Catholic doctrine put on the pope's right to exercise Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium? Can anyone step up and tell him, "hey, you can't say that; the age of apostolic revelation didn't give us that and that age is now closed!"?


What current doctrines have been established in the Catholic faith trough infalible statements of the popes, that could not be "modernized" without doing a 180 on papal infalibility? (E.g., birth control, reproductive technology, female priesthood,... What else?) A_ntv thought this was a trick question, but in all sincerity I want to better understand the official position(s) on the matter.


To what extent do you judge my historical synopsis of the indulgence sales controversy between the 95 Theses and the Diet of Worms to be factual, and how does that relate to the existing doctrine of indulgence granting in Catholic theology today? Can the actions of Leo X be defended on other grounds than the Church's Pragmatic need for money to hire the "ninja turtles" (Leonardo, Raphaelo, Donatelo and Michaelangelo)?


I have learned much here already, and I would still like to better understand your perspectives on these matters. Mark around still?


Peace, David H.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi David H.,

Hope you don't mind me inserting a few thoughts. Davidnic is more than qualified to give you good answers - I look forward to reading his response to you.

What limitations does Catholic doctrine put on the pope's right to exercise Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium? Can anyone step up and tell him, "hey, you can't say that; the age of apostolic revelation didn't give us that and that age is now closed!"?

The biggest limitations would be these:

1. First and foremost - a Papal teaching cannot *contradict* already established Church teaching

2. There must be an organic connection between what the Pope teaches and the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. A Pope cannot just make something up out of thin air (or his own imagination). Bear in mind that the Apostolic Deposit of Faith is not always explicitly found in the Bible. Sometimes it is only implied in the Bible, or exists in a very primitive and undeveloped form. For example - the doctrine that there can be no new Revelation after the Apostolic age (a doctrine that you just cited in your post to Davidnic) is not something explicitly found in the Bible - that is a Sacred Tradition of the Church and part of the Deposit of Faith. The bottom line is that a Pope cannot make something up -- it must already be a part of the fabric of Church Tradition and the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

What current doctrines have been established in the Catholic faith trough infalible statements of the popes, that could not be "modernized" without doing a 180 on papal infalibility? (E.g., birth control, reproductive technology, female priesthood,... What else?) A_ntv thought this was a trick question, but in all sincerity I want to better understand the official position(s) on the matter.

It's a fair question - but again a Pope cannot contradict Church teaching. Not only that...but...any time a Pope has offered infallible teachings on the topics you listed above (and other topics too), he did so because he was merely re-iterating and re-affirming what the Church has already taught from the beginning (albeit in a more primitive form).

In these cases, what is important to remember (and this often gets lost in discussions with non-Catholics) is that the whole doctrine of Papal Infallibility is really a subset of a much larger and more comprehensive doctrine: that of Church Infallibility. Since the Papacy is an office - and an authoritative teaching office at that - of the Church then it is only logical that an Infallible Church (presuming that it is, of course) would look to the papacy as an infallible organ of that Church. For what good would a fallible Pope be when it comes to ratifying the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, for example? If the documents are not ratified by the Pope they are not "official" Church teaching. So, if the documents are decreed by a Council of Bishops and ratified by the Pope and considered "official" and therefore (here is where it gets important) BINDING on the faithful - and hence Infallible since the Church cannot bind heresy to the faithful - it is only logical and consistent to say that only an Infallible organ of the Church can bind teachings to the Universal Church. See? It's all inter-related.

Therefore, the question that needs to be asked first is not about Papal Infallibility, but rather if the Church itself can be guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected against teaching error (and binding the universal church to it). Papal Infallibility is really something that is an extension of Church Infallibility.

Hope that helps.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

Oops - edit duplicate post.

 

[SandCrab]

Worship the Saints, worship the pope, worship the dead, worship all sorts of crazy things. =P

Dont forget the pink bench in the park!

 

[Kusanagi]

I also heard from non-Catholics that were sitcks-in-the-mud and are not free to live and enjoy life as the rest of the non-Catholics and non-Christians.

 

[Davidnic]

Luther's starting assumption in posting the 95 theses was that the pope was unaware of the abuse being propogated by the German bishops in terms of the sale of indulgences in particular, and in classically undiplomatic fashion he tried to raise public and clerical awareness of the abuse. The message he received in return was that if he continued to dare to question this practice he was to be burned as a heretic!

IOW pope Leo X was entirely aware of the practice of the sale of indulgences and gave it his personal sanction. Are you saying that these are not the historical facts of the matter, or that as pope Leo was acting outside of the proper limits of Catholic doctrine? (I suspect that you have not read the original text of the 95 Theses, as I have not read the original text of the bull of excommunication, so perhaps we might each learn something from each other here.)

It is the part that I have bolded where we disagree. This is also in answer to your question can a defense be made for Leo X.

Dr. Art Sippo has summed it up nicely by saying:

It appears that SOME of the people sent to offer the indulgence to the peasants used slogans, over-simplified examples and other techniques to speak down to the crowds to entice them to make a donation. The priest changed with overall supervision of the offer in Germany was Fr. Tetzel. Luther attacked him in the 95 Theses and that was the start of the prot revolt.

After the Luther matter erupted, the Church launched an investigation to figure out what went wrong and who was to blame. This was hardly an objective investigation.

This was a major fiasco and they were looking for someone to pin it on. The investigation cleared Tetzel and his people of any wrong-doing. It said that there was evidence of improprieties at the grass-roots level but that this was spontaneous and not due to poor directions from higher authorities.

The directives and standards imposed by Fr. Tetzel and the German bishops were declared appropriate. This result is remarkable because in those days it was more important to find a scapegoat than to clear someone's name. Fr. Tetzel was fully exonerated.

The important thing here was that if the church had wanted to frame Fr. Tetzel that would have answered a large part of Luther’s argument by throwing Fr. Tetzel in as a scapegoat.

So I would believe that Leo gave an order that was totally mismanaged on the very local level and the errors spread. Luther himself started with the assumption that the pope was unaware, so finding Fr. Tetzel guilty would have solved the problem, had it actually be about indulgences. So this leads to the indication that Leo did not know.

It is, not to cause offense, but to state my belief, that Luther had massive theological disagreements with the church. The explosion of the mismanagement of the program in Germany gave him the opportunity to bring all of his theological disagreements to the forefront. And this must be looked at to put the topic of indulgences and Luther in the proper context

To back up this point I’ll mention that Leo X wanted Luther to recant 41 of his 95 theses. In particular:

If through impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire

The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints

They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit

The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter

It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon

The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves

There are 34 others, but these highlight the vast difference that existed between Luther and the Church.

So there will always be a difference of thought and a debate in history on the answer to:

Did the Pope know that priests were selling indulgences?

And also to the question: Did Luther take advantage of the situation caused by the indulgences to bring out his broader theological differences?

Now can a Catholic disagree and say that the pope should not have offered indulgences in the first place in connection with charity toward building St. Peter’s because there were more pressing issues dealing with the poor?

Yes. That can indeed be asserted. But Luther challenged the Pope’s authority to offer indulgences at all. And then went on to challenge other points of doctrine using this as a springboard.

But a Catholic has every right to say, “Why is there an indulgence here when we would be better served by (insert something else). Because that asks if it meets one of the conditions for applying an indulgence to the departed:

There must be a sufficient reason for granting, the indulgence. This reason must be something pertaining to the glory of God and the utility of the Church, not merely the utility accruing to the souls in purgatory.

What could be questioned is that it is:

Sufficient reason

Pertains to the glory of God

But that is not what happened. The authority to issue at all was what was challenged. Abuses in indulgences have been challenged before Luther. The Fourth Latern Council of 1215 addressed this issue without questioning the concept of indulgences itself.

The classic sales pitch for indulgences which Luther found most offensive was that by contributing to the building of St. Peter's Basillica, a person could enable their loved ones to escape from purgatory years earlier. Are you saying that acquiring indulgences by proxy for the deceased also goes against Catholic teaching (since one cannot insure the loved one's detachment from sin and the loved one obviously can no longer receive the Eucharist)?

Extraordinary acts of stewardship or devotion, would be the point of discussion here. (That can be a building project, charity, missionary work or any number of things) The Pope can attach an indulgence to it as a good work done from the heart: A work of pure charity as stewardship or devotion. The pope can attach that to anything that meets certin rules. Those are below.

But if a pope, any pope, says, “give me money and I’ll let some people out of purgatory”. That is not an indulgence: Because the true and real intention of Christian charity and stewardship must be in the heart of the giver. Such an act goes against the deposit of faith and can not be justified.

And I don’t believe that this is what was going on. As to how can it effect the souls in purgatory, St. Thomas said:

"nor is there any reason why the Church may not dispose of its treasure of merits in favour of the dead, as it surely dispenses it in favor of the living".

To apply an indulgence to those in purgatory (to help remit some of the temporal effects of sin that they died with) it must:

The indulgence must be granted by the pope.

There must be a sufficient reason for granting, the indulgence, and this reason must be something pertaining to the glory of God and the utility of the Church, not merely the utility accruing to the souls in purgatory.

The pious work enjoined must be as in the case of indulgences for the living.

I reccomend Aquinas for a full reasoning on the application of indulgences to the dead (link).

When you refer to temporal punishment that indulgences can free the person from, are you speaking of things like the bad luck Mark was having on account of the weather the other day, or temporary punishment after death (purgatory) or church discipline in terms of exclusion from fellowship? Or is there some other definition for temporal punishment that I am overlooking here? Each of these alternatives raises a number of questions in return.

Temporal punishment is the effect of sin. The disorder it creates in the world. Being temporal it happens here on earth, but if we are still under the effect of it when we die we must be purified in Purgatory.

I’ll quote here from a good example on the EWTN page since it sums it up better than I could:

An example will perhaps better illustrate these points. A boy playing ball breaks a window of his home. Contrite and sorrowful he goes to his father, who forgives him. However, despite the forgiveness the window is still broken and must be repaired.

Since the boy's personal resources are insufficient to pay for a new window, the father requires him to pay a few dollars from his savings and forego some of his allowance for several weeks, but that he, the father, will pay the rest. This balances justice and mercy (generous love).

To ask the boy to do nothing, when it is possible for him to make some reparation, would not be in accordance with the truth, or even the boy's good. Yet, even this temporal debt is beyond the boy's possibilities. Therefore, from his own treasury the father generously makes up what the child cannot provide. This is indulgence.

Unlike the theologies that say "we are washed it the blood of the Lamb and there is nothing left to do," Catholic teaching respects the natural order of justice, as Jesus clearly did in the Gospels, yet recognizes that man cannot foresee or undo all the temporal consequences of his sin. However, God in His mercy will satisfy justice for what we cannot repair

Now this has nothing to do with eternal damnation. Christ took care of that. We have to choose that. We can not stumble blindly into hell.

The rescue from death and separation from God…these were paid for by Christ.

Indulgences and temporal punishment are not about those. They are about the effects caused by our continued inclination to sin and the damage it causes on human relationships with each other and the created world.

I’ll quote from the same source here to highlight the very important point that the days and years that used to be assigned to indulgences have nothing to do with time in Purgatory. This is a very common misconception even by Catholics. The sum up on that:

In the past partial indulgences were "counted" in days (e.g. 300 days) or years (e.g. 5 years). Catholics often mistakenly thought that this meant "time off of purgatory." Since there is no time in purgatory, as we understand it, it meant instead the remission of temporal punishment analogous to a certain amount of penitence as practiced in the early Church.

This was a very generous standard, since the penitence required for sacramental absolution in the early centuries was arduous, indeed. However, with Pope Paul VI's 1968 revision of the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum (Collection or Handbook of Indulgences), this confusing way of counting partial indulgences was suppressed, and the evaluation of a partial indulgence left to God.

Look at it this way. A prayer or devout practice has an indulgence attached to it because the proper and true Christian execution of that helps the soul and the world. If the practice is done without faith and love in Christ. Or done only as a series of actions or a vain repetition of words, it is useless. So it is not a matter of just reciting words or performing empty actions.

Any questions, please ask. And in the first part above I am trying to explain the counter historical argument and intend no offense.

 

[christianmomof3]

May I also ask a question here?
I have heard and seen quoted from Catholic sources, that according to the RCC, someone is not considered saved unless they are a member of the RCC. Is that correct?
Thank you

 

[NewMan99]

May I also ask a question here?
I have heard and seen quoted from Catholic sources, that according to the RCC, someone is not considered saved unless they are a member of the RCC. Is that correct?
Thank you

Yes and no.

One doesn't need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved - but - we feel that all people who are baptized into Christ are members of the Catholic Church even if they are joined imperfectly. We say this because the Bible only speaks of ONE Church - not thousands. Thus, all Christians are joined mystically to the invisible Church, but not all members are joined to the formal institutional Church.

This link might help you:

http://newman99.com/31.html

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[christianmomof3]

Yes and no.

One doesn't need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved - but - we feel that all people who are baptized into Christ are members of the Catholic Church even if they are joined imperfectly. We say this because the Bible only speaks of ONE Church - not thousands. Thus, all Christians are joined mystically to the invisible Church, but not all members are joined to the formal institutional Church.

This link might help you:

http://newman99.com/31.html

God's Peace,

NewMan

Thank you. That is an interesting link.

 

[WarriorAngel]

the [FONT=&quot]pope[/FONT][FONT=&quot] himself addressed the assembled multitudes, exhorting them to go forth and rescue[/FONT]

Doctrines are not an action, even in light of a defense.

Doctrines are teachings the Church holds.

The Pope was not discussing a teaching of the Church, he was discussing defending the Church.





Hmmm, what else do Catholics get accused of??
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Catholics re-crucify Christ at their Masses (or at least think they do)

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Catholics think Mary is part of the Godhead and is to be worshipped[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Catholics worship statues[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Catholics think they can't pray to God directly but have to go through saints[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Catholics conjure the dead [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Catholics believe people can be saved after they die[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]The Catholic Church teaches that one who isn't formally a Catholic is damned to Hell[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]The Crusades are an example of Catholic aggression[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]The Inquisition(s) killed hundreds of thousands of people and targeted Jews[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" and didn't do a thing to help Jews during WWII[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]The Catholic Church wasn't around until the time of Constantine, a pagan who controlled the Church. The Catholic Church did more than baptize pagan calendar days for the good of Christ, it is pagan in its very roots.[/FONT]

Peace! [/FONT]

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Well, here's one that irritates me alot (and often applies to more than just Catholics):

Catholics believe that God made men to look like him (ie, created in the image of God).

 

[NewMan99]

Thank you. That is an interesting link.

You're welcome. Please feel free to ask other questions too. I appreciate your respectful manner.

 

[christianmomof3]

You're welcome. Please feel free to ask other questions too. I appreciate your respectful manner.

Thank you - I am studying religions I suppose. I recently got a Catholic Bible and have been reading some of the extra books in them that are not in the Protestant Bibles. I am trying to see where the concepts in Catholicism that are not in Protestantism come from. I believe some come from these books, but apparantly there are lots of other Catholic teachings besides the Bible and it seems many concepts are from those also. It also seems to me that many of the concepts in Protestantism also come from these extra books and Catholic writings although Protestants may not realize or want to admit that.
So far, I have read Tobit and parts of Wisdom and the introductions to the other books. In another thread on here I saw someone quoting from Wisdom and in their post they had Wisdom personifying Mary. Does the Catholic church see Wisdom as Mary?
Thank you, Dana

 

[a_ntv]

Thank you - I am studying religions I suppose. I recently got a Catholic Bible and have been reading some of the extra books in them that are not in the Protestant Bibles. I am trying to see where the concepts in Catholicism that are not in Protestantism come from. I believe some come from these books, but apparantly there are lots of other Catholic teachings besides the Bible and it seems many concepts are from those also. It also seems to me that many of the concepts in Protestantism also come from these extra books and Catholic writings although Protestants may not realize or want to admit that.
So far, I have read Tobit and parts of Wisdom and the introductions to the other books. In another thread on here I saw someone quoting from Wisdom and in their post they had Wisdom personifying Mary. Does the Catholic church see Wisdom as Mary?
Thank you, Dana

Wisdom as Mary? I never heard of that.

These extra books were in the LXX version, the greek translations of the Old Testament that was useed at Christ time by the greek-speaking Jews. These greek-speaking Jews were in facts most of the first christians.
So these book were considered part of Old Testament.
Only about 100 a.d. a council of Jews decided to ban these books.
But christians went on to use these books, up to Mr M. Luther who decided to follow the reduced canon.

In a book of Maccabees there is a haevy support for the prayers for the deaths. It hurded really Mr Luther.
2Mac12:43-46:
"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin."

 

[AMDG]

It also seems to me that many of the concepts in Protestantism also come from these extra books and Catholic writings although Protestants may not realize or want to admit that.

The seven books were actually IN the 1611 King James Version, so it seems to me that all to many Protestants don't want to admit that either. (Or else they haven't been told.)

 

[Tonks]

The seven books were actually IN the 1611 King James Version, so it seems to me that all to many Protestants don't want to admit that either. (Or else they haven't been told.)

Indeed. They were placed between the OT and the NT...hence why they were called then (and still are, to a degree) the Intertestamental Books.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi Dana ,

Thank you - I am studying religions I suppose. I recently got a Catholic Bible and have been reading some of the extra books in them that are not in the Protestant Bibles. I am trying to see where the concepts in Catholicism that are not in Protestantism come from. I believe some come from these books, but apparantly there are lots of other Catholic teachings besides the Bible and it seems many concepts are from those also.

Sure. I wouldn't really say that the distinctively Catholic teachings come "from" those books, but rather those books support certain beliefs that we have always had. You must remember that the Sacred books of the Bible were not written in a vacuum, but rather are the written version of Sacred Tradition that existed prior to the Bible. For example, when Moses met God at the burning bush, God told Moses that He is "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Right? Well...Moses seemed to already know who those men were...and he knew who they were without the benefit of the Old Testament (which hadn't been written yet) to tell him. Rather, Moses knew who God was referring to because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and THEIR stories - were already a part of the shared memories of the people of God. Thus, the Oral Traditions of God's people were the basis upon which the Written Word came to be. The same can be said of all of Sacred Scripture.

Therefore, what Catholics believe can be traced to the shared memories of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith - some of which is in writing (the Bible) and some of which is not (Sacred Tradition).

It is also part of the shared memory of the Church that the Apostles and the Early Church included the seven books in the Catholic Bible as part of what they considered to be Inspired Scripture. This is easily demonstrated by reading various writings from the first few centuries of the Church. There have been a few threads around here lately on this very topic. Later tonight (I am low on time right now) I will dig up the links to the specific posts in case you are interested.

It also seems to me that many of the concepts in Protestantism also come from these extra books and Catholic writings although Protestants may not realize or want to admit that.

I very much agree with you. I was a Protestant for over 42 years and once I became a Catholic it shocked me how much I believed as a Protestant that was based on Catholic oral Tradition.

So far, I have read Tobit...

Did you like it? I love that story. It would make a great movie, I think. I love those movies where angels come to earth and pretend to be human.

...and parts of Wisdom and the introductions to the other books. In another thread on here I saw someone quoting from Wisdom and in their post they had Wisdom personifying Mary. Does the Catholic church see Wisdom as Mary?

Good question. I believe that there are some things within Wisdom whereby the role that Mary fulfilled is foreshadowed and alluded to. But there are lots of things in Wisdom going on, and the Mary aspect is but one of them.

I am also a big fan of Sirach. Just read the first chapter and you will see the beauty of it.

Until later.

God's Peace,

NewMan