Replies

:...I think it is suspect when people downplay the importance of the bible ...”

That is an assumption. The bible is not downplayed, ever by true catholics. Men, i.e. Martin Luther was the man made Ursurper. Martin Luther changed it up - may he rot in Hell. He made it too easy. PS - study St. Jerome

Then, tell me, if the Bible is not being downplayed by the expressed reliance on "oral tradition" on par with, or even ABOVE, Holy Scripture, then what would you call it? It's easy enough to insist that Catholicism reverences the Bible as the divine word of God, but, when so-called tradition along with the magesterium is given the same importance, it certainly sounds as if sacred Scripture is downplayed. What you have been doing on this thread - which, itself, is discussing a doctrine not found in Scripture - is placing the Church in the role of an authority OVER Scripture, going even so far as saying it is the "actions" of Jesus that are more important than his words written in Scripture. The RCC relies upon the notion that Jesus taught things not found in Scripture to which they, alone, were privy and who faithfully orally passed them down. It is certainly curious that such importance can be placed on doctrines that have nothing more to authenticate them than "truth is what we say it is".

I have complete assurance that Martin Luther is, right now, in heaven with Christ as he has been since the moment he left his earthly physical life. It is telling that you wish eternal damnation upon a man who sought to lead others to a genuine saving faith in Jesus Christ. It is also telling that you are under the false impression - disputed may times on the RF - that Luther corrupted the Bible by removing certain books from it. The truth is that he DID NOT remove any books at all! If you truly care about getting your facts correct, this is a good place to start: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible.

You mentioned I should study Jerome. Have you? Because had you done so, you would know that Jerome ALSO considered the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books as non-inspired and placed them separately in his Latin translation. From the above link:

In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan said,

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

I hope you have a good night and a blessed week.