Pope says fate of unbaptized babies touches important beliefs

Thing is, infants are incapable of choosing anything. If they were capable of choosing, they would need to choose BEFORE they die.

As you posted, three of the four last things happen after death - nowhere will we find the "five" last things, i.e. "death, choosing, judgment etc.

Of all the things written in scripture, the necessity of baptism with water leaves zero wiggle room.

Thing is, infants are incapable of choosing anything. If they were capable of choosing, they would need to choose BEFORE they die.

God could make that possible miraculously. I didn't make that clear.

I wrote: "The Catechism does not say that all Jews go to Hell. You did."

You responded: "No, I never used the word all. I said everyone who wallows in error and refuses to enter the Church will be condemned. 'There is no possibility that schismatics, heretics, Jews, or pagans can be saved while they wallow in their errors and reject the Church and the Truth she offers.' This is precisely what is said in #846 in the Catechism. Those who know the Church and refuse to enter it cannot be saved."

Here is the full text of Section 846 of the Cathechism:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation ["No Salvation outside of the Church"], often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Now, I read that quite a bit differently from your "'There is no possibility that schismatics, heretics, Jews, or pagans can be saved while they wallow in their errors and reject the Church and the Truth she offers.' This is precisely what is said in #846 in the Catechism. Those who know the Church and refuse to enter it cannot be saved."

I read that last sentence of 846: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it", as saying that those who KNOW that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ but who refuse to enter it anyway are not saved. On the other hand, those...such as Jews or Protestants, who have been raised in their religious views by birth and who do NOT "KNOW" that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ, are not perforce condemned. It is not that they have rejected this teaching, or they really know it and ignore it. They have been taught differently, otherwise, and they haven't REJECTED the knowledge necessary for salvation. Just knowing that the Catholic Church EXISTS is not the same thing as knowing it was founded by God, and not joining the Catholic Church simply because one knows it exists is not "refuseing to enter or remain in it" or rejecting the knowledge that this is Christ's Church. It takes more than that.

The Cathechism supports my reading quite explicity in the case of the Protestants. I quote in extenso section 817-819 of the Catechism (only footnote references have been deleted), because this says exactly what I just said.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
[End of quote from Cathechism]

It's this sentence here, from #819: "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church" that says explicitly that Protestants, at least, can find salvation and go to Heaven in their Churches. Now, of course the Cathechism goes on to explain that there remains a subtle union with these Protestants such that they really are, after all, within the Church, just not recognizably so.

Anyway, my point is that the Catechism says these things, and what it says is different from what you seem to be implying, and direclty contradicts what Stubborn has had to say.

Stubborn rejects the authority of the Catechism itself, calling it in error. You have been much more subtle, but I can't clearly understand your answers. You said that you didn't say "all" Jews go to Hell, but that's the effect of what you said: they know of the existence of the Catholic Church, they do not join the Catholic Church, therefore, they cannot be saved, and therefore, they are doomed to Hell. Is this not the inevitable, inescapable logic of what you have said?

Now, the Catechism simply does not say that.
It says the opposite of that.
I agree that it does not explain how non-Christians might go to heaven. I agree that it says that the Church has a mission to teach the Gospel to all. But the Cathechism says that Protestants are somehow mystically of the Church, and achieve salvation through the grace of the Holy Spirit in their Churches WITHOUT accepting the authority of Rome. Rome LAMENTS this, but the official position of the Catholic Church is that today's Protestants are saved, just like Catholics are.

Stubborn has directly accused the Pope and the Magesterium of the Church of error for having stated this. He says that this teaching contradicts infallible teachings from the "ecumenical council of Florence" (we need an authoritative list of ecumenical councils published by the Church to decide whether Florence was in fact an ecumenical council or not - he has found a list that says it was, I have a list that says it wasn't), and that therefore it is error. He has also said that if a person deliberately contradicts infallible doctrines, he has lapsed into heresy or schism and is in sin. He won't go so far as to say that the Pope has committed a grievous sin by promulgating this Cathechism, but again, by applying clear, precise Aristotelian logic to the terms Stubborn has presented, the inevitable, inescapable conclusion is that the words of the Cathechism I have quoted are heretical contradictions of infallible doctrines, and that the Pope and the whole college of Bishops who promulgated the catechism are promulgating heresy and thereby have lost salvation and are damned to Hell. There is no hand waving that escapes that logic.

You haven't been so bold. But the Cathechism says that Protestants achieve salvation. It says that the Church believes non-Christians can be saved (without conversion to Catholicism). Is the Cathechism in error?

I believe what the Catechism says.
I believe that the Catechism is an absolutely authoritative statement of the True Catholic Faith, just like the Pope writes that it is in the preface.
Now, the Cathechism outright conflicts with what Stubborn has said. It seems to conflict with what you have said.
I know what the authority of the Pope and the Magesterium are.
I am wondering what the basis of authority is that you assert for contradicting the Catechism.

Perhaps it will come down to this: you don't think you are contradicting the Catechism, and you and I read the same words and interpret them differently. I interpret them expansively, and you interpret them restrictively. That may be what it comes down to.

So maybe that's where we should start:
Is the Catechism is the authoritative statement of the Catholic Faith that the Pope and the Bishops who promulgated it say it is right on the face of the document.
Yes or no?

Quite a read. Thank-you for the link. How does this square with predestination and the elect?

Quite a read. Thank-you for the link. How does this square with predestination and the elect?

John Calvin's belief was that while infants are conceived under the pervasive iniquity of Original Sin, the Father (acting on what is, after all, His Own prerogative) elected to apply the atoning merits of Christ upon those whom He ordained to pass away in Infancy.

There's no Scripture which explicitly states this, but the Article includes half-a-dozen Scriptures which (IMHO) strongly suggest as much.

God will not hold people responsible for what they do not know or are unable to do, since He is just.

Here lies the fundamental problem. If "not holding people responsible for what they do not know or are unable to do" is "just" and if God would not do such a thing because he is "just," then there is a set of rules which includes justice to which God is morally bound. Where did these rules come from?

On the other hand, if whatever God does is by definition "just," then the only reason that "to not hold people responsible for what they do not know or are unable to do" is just is because God does it. However, if God decides to "hold people responsible for what they do not know or are unable to do," then that, too, is just because God does it. There are no moral absolutes other than God's arbitrary decisions, and arbitrary decisions hardly qualify as moral absolutes.

It appears, then, that to be just, God is bound by moral rules outside of his control; or, if God is not bound by moral rules outside of his control, justice is simply the arbitrary decisions of a Divine power, the ultimate moral relativism, as it were.

Biker NYC wrote: "if God is not bound by moral rules outside of his control, justice is simply the arbitrary decisions of a Divine power, the ultimate moral relativism, as it were."

You have stated the truth: that God is not bound by moral rules (or any other rules) outside of his control, but you've misdiagnosed this as moral relativism.

Is gravity "moral relativism"? Gravity, after all, is simply an opinion of God. That is all it is. There is no greater reality to gravity than to the opinions of God which we call "moral rules". Both come out of nothing and simply ARE, because thinks that they should be show. So, sin and its consequences are as relative as "fall down, go boom" under the emprise of gravity. God could cause gravity to cease to exist, or to operate fundamentally differently, in an instant by simply changing His mind.
He doesn't, or hasn't thus far in our our experience anyway, because He is constant, because He thinks His creation is "Good" (this opinion of His is in Genesis).

So yes, morality, sin, death, gravity, the weak force, the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, entropy, fundamental randomness, superstrings, Heaven and Hell are all the frank opinions of God. But they are realities, and they are not subject to any change at all, unless God chooses to change them.

This is not moral relativism, it is absolute despotism. The difference between God and an absolute monarch who sets the laws is that the monarch is bound by laws: gravity, for one, also the power of other people - direct or indirect. The result is that even absolute monarchs find that they MUST change their minds, inflect their opinions, alter things, because of the pressures of the world. There is no pressure on God. God formed His opinions billions of years ago, uninfluenced by anything or anyone other than Himself, and these opinions of God's are the laws, moral and physical, that govern the universe. There is no negotiating with gravity or the moral law: step off a building,and you will always plummet to your death, 100% of the time, because God's opinion is automatic and self-executing. Nothing presses on Him to change it, and nothing has pressed on Him to change it, and nothing CAN press on Him to change it since the dawn of time. Therefore, everyone who steps off a building, holy or heathen, plummets. God made up His mind once, for all time. And God's opinions are simply the hard facts of nature. Likewise with the moral code. Rape, steal, kill, and burn in Hell. Period. It's not negotiable. God's opinion is fixed, clear, and there is no pressure and nothing that can move God. The human being negotiates with human law, because pressure can be brought to bear on human beings. But negotiating with God about the moral law is like negotiating with God about gravity: you have absolutely nothing to bargain with, no more than a leaf falling off a tree has any negotiating power. It SHALL fall, and that is that.

Now, of course, language is flexible enough that if you want to think of God as human, and in some sense a peer, you can call the fact that he sentences every living thing to death an exercise in moral relativism, since gravity, the strong nuclear force and the moral law are all "simply" God's opinions, and therefore, presumably, relative. The difference is that God never changes His mind, because He doesn't have to. And HIS opinions are self-executing laws of everything from subatomic particles to the migration of souls. Human opinions are fickle, changeable, and subject to being trumped by superior force.

God's moral relativism, if that is what you want to call it, is the moral relativism of the absolute despot who has the authority not just to read all minds and kill all men, but unlike Canute, the power to command back the tides, or even command the ocean out of existence in an instant.
That's not moral relativism.

An excellent response! In Greek we call God the "Pantokrator" the Ruler of All. His is the ultimate definition of Love and Justice. Everything in Creation is by definition measured by Him, not the other way around. He is the ultimate benchmark!

Moral relativism is a view that claims moral standards are not absolute or universal.

God is the ultimate moral relativist. Whatever standards of morality God holds are not absolute or universal. His very actions define what he believes to be good and bad, and thus his standards of morality change depending on what he does. He determines that it is good to commit genocide by drowning almost all of our species in the Flood because he so acts. He determines it to be good to command Abraham to murder his son because he so commands. There are no universal standards to His right and wrong. There is nothing to which he appeals to justify his decisions.

I agree, God is a despot. But despotic decisions in the realm of morality is moral relativism. The moral relativist is not bound by moral absolutes or universals. I don't know what better describes God's moral decision making. There are no rules he needs to follow. He makes it up as he goes along.

God is constant? Is constancy a value which God must adhere to in order to act justly? There is no reason God need be constant and the evidence certainly disputes that he is. For example, God finds his creation Good, he then regrets he ever created Man. In "God: A Biography," Jack Miles does an excellent job detailing the contradictory thoughts and behavior of God as revealed by the Old Testament. God, in fact, is a changing, evolving, troubled, confused, and indecisive deity.

Indeed, to claim that God is constant is to infuse God with a nature, the origin of which is troublesome. Exactly who or what determined the nature that God must have? If it is God himself, then he is able to change his nature at any time and constantcy is not, for him, a constant.

God's opinions are not and cannot be fixed. If they are, what process determined which opinions God would or should have?

Yes, God, like Stalin, may have the power to destroy for whatever reason he prefers. From God's point of view, might makes right. He can offer us no justification for his moral decisions other than, "because I said so." (Isn't that the position of the moral relativist?)

If, however, God can offer us no justification for his moral decisions other than, "because I said so," (and I believe that he, in fact, cannot offer us any other justification), are we to listen to what he has to say so that we maximize physical pleasure and minimize physical pain? Are those who find value in God’s moral decisions and make the decision to follow them hedonists? If so, why is hedonism the right measure of moral worth? If pain and pleasure should not be our guiding principle, as it has not been for many who have fought despots (including those who have acted in God’s name) throughout history, then why should we listen to anything God has to say?

As you say, gravity is a fact we have to live with, but so is the necessity for us to make moral decisions. If God's justification for his moral decisions is limited to "because I said so," so is ours, because although the faithful may claim to follow the will of God, when asked why it is a good thing to do so, all they can say is, "because I said so."

We are made in God’s image because we share with God the capacity to make moral decisions that have no justification other than that they are what we believe to be right. As God’s moral decisions are not absolute or universal, neither are ours, and, at best, those who seek to follow the will of God will necessarily change their moral views as God’s views change. We are all, both mortal and immortal alike, moral relativists.

The re-formulation in the catechism is OBVIOUSLY a new doctrine, it is not a matter of interpreting, it is new. It is not infallible, it contradicts the origianl meaning and is error.

There is no list of infallible pronouncements.
The Catechism's of the Church are not infallible.

Were the 1546 Council of Trent decrees and canons, infallible?

What about papal bulls, are they?

Does the pope have to be seated in the chair of Peter for them to be ex cathera?

JH :)

Read the link I posted from Vatican I, in there it will let you know whats infallible and whats not.

Read the link I posted from Vatican I, in there it will let you know whats infallible and whats not.

SESSION 2 : 6 January 1870

Profession of faith (from your link)

Likewise
14.
*all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred
canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly
and profess; in the same way
*whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and
anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.

--------------------------------------------------------
Since they claim to uphold all the canons that came out of Trent, how was it that the Church has continued to this very day, to approve five apocryphal books that the Council of Trent didn’t decree as canonical, or authorize them to be put in with the canonical books?

1. The Additions to Esther
2. The Prayer of Three Children
3. Susanna
4. Bel and the Dragon
5. The Epistle of Jeremiah

There is no authorization from Trent for either one of these five books.

---------------------------------------------------------

Council of Trent – The Fourth Session

(The Old Testament)

They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

---------------------------------------------------------
Show me where these five books I listed above are authorized to be part of the official Latin Vulgate edition of the Catholic Church.

JH :)

I guess I do not know what you are talking about. There are no books in the Catholic Ot named The Additions to Esther, The Prayer of Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon or The Epistle of Jeremiah. There is one named Jeremias, but thats as close as it gets.

The books in the OT that were removed from non-Catholic bibles are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and two books of the Machabees.

I guess I do not know what you are talking about. There are no books in the Catholic Ot named The Additions to Esther, The Prayer of Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon or The Epistle of Jeremiah. There is one named Jeremias, but thats as close as it gets.

[1]Your Catholic Bible shows Esther with 16 chapters,
.......The Hebrew OT book of Esther has 10, so you
.......have 6 additional chapters that were not in the Hebrew canon.
....... The Catholic Bible added 3 books to the Hebrew canonical book of Daniel.
[2] The Prayer of the Three Children
[3] Susanna
[4] Bell and the Dragon
.......The Catholic Bible has the book of Baruch. It
.......had 5 chapters, but you added a 6th.chapter which is………
[5] “the Epistle of Jeremiah”, that’s another book.

That makes [5] “FIVE” additional books that were
added to the Catholic Bible and was not approved by
the Council of Trent in 1546.

Where did your Church receive the authority to overide
the Council of Trent and do this?

The books in the OT that were removed from non-
Catholic bibles are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and two books of the
Machabees.

They were not removed, since they were never in the Hebrew canon, and the Hebrew Old Testament canon is the one we base ours Bible on, not the Catholic canon.

Remember what Paul wrote?

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The seven apocryphal books you mentioned were not in the canon of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that he completed in 404AD. Any of the apocrypha books Jerome used were placed in an appendix, and not in with the canonical books.

JH :)

Your facts are completely backwards. The books approved by Trent were the way they are before they were approved. Your accusation that there are 5 additional books is just plain silly.

As for the 7 books that are missing from non-catholic bibles, they were removed. The Church did not add anything. It was the protestants who disagreed with the contents of those books during the protestant revolt that had them removed - they were always a part of the Bible.

The bottom line really is this: the reformers removed those books which seemed to disagree with or contradict the new faith as they reformed (created?)it. Those books were always there. They were removed by Luther and other reformers. Would *you* ever propose to remove any book from the Bible? Me neither, but thats what they did. Its just that simple.

Aside from all that, hopefully you see how foolish it is to place your trust for salvation in a helpless book now.

http://members.aol.com/johnprh/deuterocanonical.html#DEUTEROCANONICAL%20%20%20BOOKS
Please note also that the Council of Trent was held 1545 to 1562. If your assertion was accurate, the dicrepencies you question would had to happen after Trent.

Your facts are completely backwards. The books approved by Trent were the way they are before they were approved. Your accusation that there are 5 additional books is just plain silly.

Please read my post #212, the Council of Trent – The Fourth Session

Read the books the Council approved. Then point out these 5 apocryphal books I listed so I can identify them.

As for the 7 books that are missing from non-catholic bibles, they were removed. The Church did not add anything. It was the protestants who disagreed with the contents of those books during the protestant revolt that had them removed - they were always a part of the Bible.

You really need to find out what went on back then, instead of just assuming everything you were taught was the truth.

Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate Bible from the Hebrew text. In his preface to Kings he named each of the books that he put in his translation.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html

Jerome’s preface to Samuel and Kings.
The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call5395Thorath, that is law. The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth, 490Jeremiah, the seventh, Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews5396 Thare Asra. To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second5397Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into5398two books; the ninth is Esther. And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law.

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators.

Those are the words of Jerome spelling out the books he translated from the Old Testament to make the Latin Vulgate, that became the official Bible of the Catholic Church for over 900 years, and your seven books are not included in the list.

The bottom line really is this: the reformers removed those books which seemed to disagree with or contradict the new faith as they reformed (created?)it. Those books were always there. They were removed by Luther and other reformers. Would *you* ever propose to remove any book from the Bible? Me neither, but thats what they did. Its just that simple. Aside from all that, hopefully you see how foolish it is to place your trust for salvation in a helpless book now.

Its obvious you have never read your own history of the many screw up that took place from the time of Trent, until your Church finally disregarded Pope Sixtus V’s Bible, and ignored his papal bull that enforced it, and they came up with their own mixed and corrupted translation they called the Sixtus-Clementine edition.

It was one of the worse times in the history of your Church. The Pope and those who assisted him conspired to lie to the people, then they forged a preface as though pope Sixtus V had written it him self, and then published it as though he wrote it

For some of the story, go to your own CE website, and look up Bellarmine, the Jesuit, and until you do, don’t call my findings foolish.

JH :)

Please note also that the Council of Trent was held 1545 to 1562. If your assertion was accurate, the dicrepencies you question would had to happen after Trent.

I'm well aware of when the Council of Trent was held. If you don't like my link, find me one of your own that gives their list of canonical books, then show me where those 5 are mentioned.

Most of what I read from your link is pure nonsense, and the author has never studied Jerome. If there is anything specifically there you wish to use as proof for your position, let me know and I go over it with you.

JH :)

As I have mentioned before, get yourself the Haydock Bible. In there it goes into beautiful detail explaining what happened.

The link I posted was about the closest thing to explaining the events that led to the differences between the Hebrew and the Vulgate that I could find without typing it all out from the Haydock.

The 5 books you talk about are not in my Bible, and fyi, I have a bible from 1492 and the 5 books you speak of are not in there either.

They are not in any Bible I have nor are they in any Catholic (Douay-Rheims) Bible that I have ever seen.

As I have mentioned before, get yourself the Haydock Bible. In there it goes into beautiful detail explaining what happened.

I already know what happened, and I don’t need no stinkin Haydock Bible to confirm it. As Rush would say, a little Hispanic lingo there. Lol

The link I posted was about the closest thing to explaining the events that led to the differences between the Hebrew and the Vulgate that I could find without typing it all out from the Haydock.

Why would you dig around for some unknown Bible translation/commentary, when you can read what the author of your Bible said about it himself?

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc13/htm/TOC.htm

The 5 books you talk about are not in my Bible, and fyi, I have a bible from 1492 and the 5 books you speak of are not in there either.
They are not in any Bible I have nor are they in any Catholic (Douay-Rheims) Bible that I have ever seen

Either your pulling my leg, or your obfuscating the subject. I have before me the Memorial Edition of the 1952 Douay Version, also the NAB Official Catholic Bible, and both of them have the 5 books I asked you about.

This is from my PC Bible Library, which you probably have also, and it’s in the New Jerusalem Bible with Apocrypha, in the Apocrypha section in the book of Daniel.

A-Daniel 3:24, The SONG OF AZARIAH IN THE FURNACE (This is also called the Prayer of Three Children.)

A - Daniel 13:1, SUSANNA AND THE JUDGEMENT OF DANIEL

A-Daniel 14:1, BEL AND THE DRAGON

A - Baruch 6:1-12 - IV: THE LETTER OF JEREMIAH

The New Jerusalem Bible has mixed the apocrypha throughout the 10 chapters of Daniel rather then adding them on the end. As a result the canonical book of Daniel has 10 chapters and 167 verses, where as the Apocrypha Daniel has 10 chapters but 256 verses.

Anyway, in the Douay version, the apocrypha begins in the book of Esther, in chapter 10 at the 4th verse, and the addition continues through the 14th chapter.

So again I ask you, where did your Church find the authority to overide the Council of Trent, and add 5 books they hadn’t authorized?

JH :)