Specifically the Books of Tobit and Judith. Do you believe the events described in this Book really took place? Things like Tobit boiling a fish to drive away a demon or the historical inaccuracies in Judith are big hurdles for me when it comes to accepting the two books as canon. Sure, you could say that other writings in the Bible contain strange spiritual practices or events that modern (((historians))) say are inaccurate, but Tobit and Judith are on a whole other level. I've heard some Catholics refer to them as "spiritual novels", or something like that, but those same people also refer to the Book of Daniel as a work of fiction which is something I and most serious Christians wholeheartedly reject. I've also heard some Orthodox connect Tobit boiling the fish head with Psalm 140, which is interesting, but I'd like to hear someone elaborate on that.
Please don't turn this thread into another Catholic vs Protestant shit flinging match.
Question for Catholics and Orthodox about the Apocryhpa
*Deuterocanon. It's really hard to be considered hidden when billions do recognise you as showed.
Do you believe the events described in Bible really took place?
Even less unbelievable than Jesus healing man with spit and dirt or Eliseus healing man by immersion in water.
I grew up enough to trust Bible over secular historians. Preface to Judith by Haydock do good job in explaining historical difficulties.
Also, since you seem to be genuinely interested I could explain to you spiritual significance of fish episode but that would take a little time.
Quran confirmed canon
That's canon m8. Catholics consider all canon to be true and infallible as it is sacred scripture.
Apocryhpa
late Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin apocrypha (scripta) ‘hidden (writings)’, from Greek apokruphos, from apokruptein ‘hide away’.
If you don't see the point then I recommend going to occultist
*oculist. Note to self - abstain from writing past eleven
Those were physical acts that affected physical things. This is a physical act affecting the spiritual, which seems odd compared to the other miracles in the Bible.
Thanks, I'll check that out.
CORRECTION:
Unless it contradicts one of their churches or Magic Hat Man's ever changing positions.
Nope. Sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the magisterium do not contradict each other. If you perceive a contradiction then the fault lies in your interpretation
...
Is Enoch considered canonical? A man becoming an angel, not LIKE an angel, seems incredibly false.
Amen,
Except when they do and it's always tradition>magesterium>random priests>"sacred" interpretation
No sacred scripture anywhere in there. Cash for heaven scheme 500ish years back prove it,
Not by anybody sane
It would still be recovering of health by ordinary water/dust with spit. At least fish smelled and looked like sacrfice/incense.
And you know what's funny? That on base of corporal (Eucharist) affecting spiritual (soul) St. Irenaeus proved that gnosticism cannot be true and that there will be resurection of the body.
Not to mention that we proclaim in creed that we belive in "baptism for remmsion of sins", again corporal affecting spiritual.
But I really digress here, for in Tobit we actually read this: "Then the angel Raphael took the devil, and bound him in the desert of upper Egypt." So it was rather spiritual affecting spiritual.
I.e. never
Magisterium IS sacred interpretation.
"Random priest" have as good interpretation as he is trained to be, only difference between him and ordinary Catholic is that he was sent to preach by actual teaching body (fun fact, Luther used this very calim, that he was doctor of theology made by the pope so he can preach his retarded theories. And when Pope said that he should teach no more he REEEE'ed).
And Scripture is Tradition.
Here is Haydock's introduction for convenience.
INTRODUCTION
The sacred writer of this Book is generally believed to be the high priest Eliachim, (called also Joachim.) The transactions herein related, most probably happened in his days, and in the reign of Manasses, after his repentance and return from captivity. It takes its name from that illustrious woman, by whose virtue and fortitude, armed with prayer, the children of Israel were preserved from the destruction threatened them by Holofernes and his great army. It finishes with her canticle of thanksgiving to God. (Challoner) — He was a chief officer at court, under Ezechias, (4 Kings xviii. 18.; Haydock) before he was high priest, assuming his father Helchias's name. Many suppose that he was the author of this Book, as Josephus informs us that the priests recorded the most remarkable transactions. But this would prove that they wrote all the histories of the Bible. St. Jerome (in Aggeus i. 6.) seems to believe that Judith left these memoirs. Yet we have no certain proof of the author. Josephus passes over this history, as he professed to exhibit only the Hebrew books. (Antiquities x. 11.; Prol. &c.) St. Jerome doubts not but this was written in Chaldean, from which language he translated it; unless he caused it to be first explained to him in Hebrew as he did the Book of Tobias. (Calmet) — He might, however, have attained sufficient knowledge of the former language, which is so like the Hebrew, before he undertook this work. (Haydock) — He professes to give "the sense," rather than a verbal translation. The Greek must have been taken from another copy, and is followed by the Syriac, in which we find some passages more exact than in the present Greek copies. The original is entirely lost. It might have removed many difficulties. Those however which are started by our adversaries, are not unanswerable. Grotius would suppose that this work is only a parable, representing the state of the Jewish church under the persecution of Epiphanes. But this singular notion has no foundation; and if it had, the authenticity of the Book would not be endangered, as the parables both of the Old and New Testament are certainly true, and written by inspiration. (Calmet) — Luther styles it a poetical comedy; (Pref. et Sympos. 29.) but both Jews and Christians have esteemed it a true history: (Worthington) and this innovator (Haydock) allows, that "the Book is beautiful, and written by an inspired prophet." (Calmet) — The Fathers have looked upon it with the utmost veneration; and St. Jerome, though he was at one time under some doubts, placed it on a level with the Books of Ruth, and Esther, &c. (Ep. ad Principiam.) — It is admitted by Origen, Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, St. Hilary, Ven. Bede, &c., as the history of a most valiant matron, delivering God's people from a cruel tyrant. (Worthington) — Some place this event under Cambyses, son of Cyrus; (Eusebius; St. Augustine) others under Xerxes, (Torniel) or Darius Hystaspes, (Estius) or Ochus: (Sulp. Severus) but the opinion which has been given above is more accurate; (Calmet) or rather Bethulia was saved, while Manasses was in captivity, (in the 10th year of his reign) and the high priest administered affairs in his absence. At this point, Judith might be thirty-five years old. She lived seventy years afterwards; and many days (perhaps eight years more) passed before the country was invaded by Pharao Nechao, chap. xvi. 30. Thus Manasses survived 45 years, Amon 2, Josias 31; total 78. This chronology removes every difficulty. (Houbigant, Pref.) — If true, it seems probable that the work would be originally in Hebrew, as the Chaldean was used only after the captivity, (Haydock) which may be farther proved from chap. i. 15. (Greek) (Houbigant) — Protestants prefer to translate this and the other apocrypha from the Greek. (Menochius)
I believe the Ethiopians only use 1 Enoch. I have never read any of the Enpch books, but it looks like the Metatron stuff is from 3 Enoch, which is not canonical to any major group. I think 1 Enoch is mostly questioned for its interpretation of the Nephilim as angels, which runs contrary to the dominant Catholic interpretation.
Thanks. These explanations help a lot.
...
didn't St Peter's cathedral get funded by indulgence coins?
"St. Peter's basilica was being rebuilt, but there was no money. Leo decided to solve the problem in time-honored fashion. On this day March 15, 1517 he declared that anyone who contributed to the cathedral would be granted an indulgence"
What a thing!
while it's true they were hawked, the theological claim it's trying to make was never the case. it was never about covering the guilty of the sins, but about lessening the penance of purgatory.
major difference; additionally, it could not release you from Purgatory, but, in theory shorten the time spent there
There are no guilty people in purgatory. Never have been, never will be. For purgatory is about temporal punishment that one is due to God and neighbor not guilty. As Trent theologians teached: "indulgences are liberation from temporal punishment, which remains after the forgiveness of guilt and eternal punishment". And they teached it baesed upon past four ecumenical councils. As even Luther teached when he was still semi-sane "He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!" and that “the pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf.”
And so was hounds of other churches. So was millions of ductas spent on the homeless and sick. So was christians defended in middle east. So was countless hours of prayers said. For there to be indulgence, exept doing some kind of good work (prayer, almsgiving, fast) you have to:
But all of this is null exept for:
>A complete and whole-hearted detachment from all sin of any kind, even venial sin,
Seems like the Church has a mighty hubris, to think they can tell God "this person gave me 'x' punish him less, plz". Only God knows the souls of Man.
Again, you don't seem to know how this works. Why not just google it?
Indulgences do not actually apply towards mortal sin; they cannot save a soul stained with mortal sin from damnation unless God directly pardons them/decides otherwise.
"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"
And you do know that purgatory is for saved alone? That only those who go to heaven go there? And that it's not place for the living i.e. those who have their union of body and soul not destroyed?
"Above all, a most clear distinction must be made between indulgences for the living and those for the dead.
As regards indulgences for the living, Tetzel always taught pure (Catholic) doctrine. The assertion that he put forward indulgences as being not only a remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a remission of its guilt, is as unfounded as is that other accusation against him, that he sold the forgiveness of sin for money, without even any mention of contrition and confession, or that, for payment, he absolved from sins which might be committed in the future. His teaching was, in fact, very definite, and quite in harmony with the theology of the (Catholic) Church, as it was then and as it is now, i.e., that indulgences "apply only to the temporal punishment due to sins which have been already repented of and confessed" ….
The case was very different with indulgences for the dead. As regards these there is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession.
He also taught, in accordance with the opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. Starting from this assumption, there is no doubt that his doctrine was virtually that of the well known drastic proverb.
The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them. "Preachers," he said, "speak in the name of the Church only so long as they proclaim the doctrine of Christ and His Church; but if, for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know nothing, and which is only their own imagination, they must not be accepted as mouthpieces of the Church. No one must be surprised if such as these fall into error."