*Why* Did Martin Luther Remove Books from the Bible? w/

Jimmy Akin explores Luther's decision to exclude these books from the Protestant canon, delving into historical context, Luther's potential motivations, and the role of the Holy Spirit in shaping the canon.
Full episode: kzbin.info...
More Catholic Answers: catholic.com
Donate: givecatholic.com

[@joannc147]

Jimmy Aiken = well-researched, thoughtful and complete answers. WOW. Thank you!

[@litoaykiu]

Jimmy just proved that Catholicism is man-made idea! Selling you an idea that Holy Spirit led the Church to Catholic Bible and same Holy Spirit lead Orthodox to Orthodox Bible (you can't have two separate paths) but if you were to reunite with Orthodox - no Holy Spirit to be found! LOL!

[@BradleyFear]

Martin Luther: 'We live our faith by the infallible rule of scripture alone... starting from...' *Rips a few pages out of the bible* Martin Luther: '... Now.'

[@lukemccann]

laughed out loud

[@Richard-e5m]

@@lukemccann Yeah, that's a lie. Luther did no such thing.

[@PetarStamenkovic]

I love my Catholic brothers and I'd love if we were to reunite :)

[@raymondjarvis765]

Sure...come on over

[@CatholicNetworkZA]

If you believe in being reunited, what are you doing about it - what are you willing to give up for that?

[@PetarStamenkovic]

@@CatholicNetworkZA I'm a new convert. I had substantial trouble differentiating the one true church. Catholicism has many many many good things going for it. Me personally, I'm willing to hear a good, high level reason for allowing filioque. As I understand it, at the basic level, filioque is wrong, but there are ways of understanding the problem that make it not only, not a problem, but a natural conclusion. I'd love to start with that. I'm sure there are many things we can agree over. Also, I'd love to recognize Catholic saints. I think that would be a natural progression in unity. I would save this for last, but the calendar and the date of Christmas and Easter, for example should be updated to Gregorian calendar. This one seems like both a very easy and logical step, but absolutely the last one, I'd take in unity. This one helped me recognize which church goes to what lengths to preserve the Apostolic tradition they have received. And that allowed me to see just how close the Catholic church is too. And by contrast, how far away Protestants are.

[@CatholicNetworkZA]

@@PetarStamenkovic Are you a new convert to Christianity? Or do I misunderstand you?

[@PetarStamenkovic]

@@CatholicNetworkZA I am new, yes. One year now :)

[@SacredReason]

✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.

[@SacredReason]

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

[@famvids9627]

The SyriaC orthodox church is one of those ancient churches within orthodoxy that speaks Aramaic. They are part of the oriental orthodox tradition. They have the shortest biblical Canon in all of Christianity, and it doesn't even include revelation. The Ethiopian orthodox church has the largest cannon in all of Christianity, and yet both of those churches are in full communion. It isn't the biblical Canon that ever united us, but the Eucharist... Jesus. We all agree on the mass.

[@healhands5760]

True, yet if you dont have [Revelation] in your canon, how can we know the One who is the Beginning and End (Alpha and Omega), the Almighty, the intercession of Saints, the Assumption of Mary in heaven, the 24 Elders beside the alter of God, etc

[@renjithjoseph7135]

​@@healhands5760 Sacred Tradition

[@famvids9627]

@@healhands5760 sacred tradition

[@healhands5760]

@@renjithjoseph7135 correct, and we need Three Pillars of Church: 1.) Scripture 2.) Sacred Tradition 3.) Magisterium

[@healhands5760]

@@renjithjoseph7135 correct, and we need Three Pillars of Church 1.) Scripture 2.) Sacred Tradition 3.) Magisterium

[@christophera6570]

A council, which sat for 54 years had included those seven books and Martin Luther had removed them usurping such an authority upon himself! How many sessions of prayers would have preceded when those seven books were canonised! All such prayers had authorised the inclusion of those seven books and Luther thought it wise to remove them by his own sweet will!

[@robertgasper2495]

Whether Martin Luther formally removed books from the Bible or not isn't really relevant. He created the schism which led to a split in the Church that now includes over 40,000 different Protestant denominations - many of which scarcely resemble Christianity at all. You can find Protestant churches that preach that abortion is ok and that gay marriage is ok, etc. God only knows what the eternal consequences may have been for millions of souls who have been misled. The good shepherd does not scatter his sheep. Martin Luther's legacy is that he scattered Christ's sheep.

[@johnyang1420]

Amen

[@jamesdaniel1376]

You can also find Catholics who either openly advocate for abortion or who, like your current pope, who refuse to apply discipline to those who openly support abortion and thus tacitly give their approval to sin. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches much that cannot be backed up scripturally or historically. Things like Mary's perpetual virhinity, her assumption into Heaven, her Catholic title of "Queen of Heaven" which found its origin in the name of Ba'al's consort. Papal succession back to Peter is not historically sound. Transubstantiation and purgatory are not found in the Bible unless you are willing to rewrite the texts to support errant doctrine. As Jesus once said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[@Spuurtzithink]

Ive seen people who claim to be “christian” that reject the trinity and the virginity of mary As well as the divinity of Jesus, i dont know whats going on anymore Guess all i can do is pray

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@Spuurtzithink Jesus told a parable where a man planted wheat in his field and then an enemy came along and planted tares among the wheat. Those people would be the tares. Jesus knew that there would be people who would say they were Christians, yet not be willing to live by the precepts of the Bible. They have been present from the beginning with Judas, Paul's adversary, Alexander the Coppersmith and others and they will be present until Jesus' return to consumate his kingdom.

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@robertgasper2495 The more correct argument would be that the leadership of the Catholic Church caused the split by the corruption, false doctrines and worldliness of the pope and cardinals that Luther experienced on his trip to Rome. Had the Catholic Church policed itself, Luther would have had no beef. It was their unwillingness or inability to answer his 95 Theses and their attempts to bully him into submission that pushed him out.

[@LNR65]

Isn’t removing books from the Bible exactly what the Bible says DONT do 😂

[@andyb2977]

The book of Revelation says not to remove anything from it, but I think that prohibition just applies to not removing anything from that book. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that we shouldn't remove books that have been included in the canon since the Council of Rome.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@andyb2977 Those books were not considered inspired. Which is why multiple people/catholics rejected them as well. All the way up to the reformation. They were lists of books approved to be read. Thats all.

[@NickyMetropolis1313]

@@ContendingEarnestly Martin Luther a heretic removed books from the Bible on his own authority. This is not allowed.

[@michaelibach9063]

@@ContendingEarnestlythat’s literally a lie

[@michaelibach9063]

@@ContendingEarnestlythose books were considered inspired when God included them in the Septuagint 300bc

[@andreeattieh2963]

Luther was backed into a corner in a debate so he removed them

[@simonslater9024]

Which he had no right to do. He was inspired by Satan to take out of sacred scripture 7 INSPIRED books how evil is that. And what satanic arrogance to think he knew better than the 1500 year old holy Catholic Church. If a person wilfully rejects the holy Catholic Church they are damned. And to call protestant’s Christian is unbiblical heretical anti Christ and blasphemy!

[@zimriel]

Honestly we could do without Tobit or Judith, and in his time (some) people were still taking the fake "Laodiceans" epistle seriously iirc. Luther's problem is that he deferred to the Jews too much. He had the opportunity, whilst taking out trash like Tobit, to take Esther out with it, which we don't need. Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees are legit though, those should stay.

[@zimriel]

@darrellperez1029 Tobit is part of the "Essene" faction which produced the Aramaic Levi / Aqhat cycle, and supports endogamy, which the Church has condemned. If Tobit is inspired, then it is inspired by the wrong angel. There might not even be any point in continuing this discussion; textual fundamentalists are silly whatever denomination they pretend.

[@simonslater9024]

@@zimriel it the holy Catholic Church that made the final decision in 397AD,as to what would make up the canon of sacred scripture. And the holy Catholic Church is the ONLY CHURCH. Protestant’s belong to 48,000 man made protestant CULTS that serve Satan. And when you attack parts of the bible which is a Catholic book you also attack Jesus Christ God himself.

[@liammurphy8221]

@@zimriel So because Tobit was written by the Essenes, and the Essenes support things that the Church has condemned, that all of a sudden means that the contents of Tobit are wrong?

[@josh39684]

Luther never removed them completely (only regulated them) but they were officially removed in 1825 by the British Foreign Bible Society due to cost

[@petervan333]

what does that mean........"regulate" them? and on whose authority did he "regulate" them?

[@armandogomez314]

⁠@@petervan333 If memory serves me right, he took the deuterocanonical books and squeezed them together at the end of the bibles they (the reformers) printed, so technically speaking it is true they were never removed; but I agree with you on the premise of authority, since this and several other actions caused a domino effect of questioning your superiors authority with the excuse of following Bible authority when in reality they are following themselves without realizing, ending up with thousands of denominations and basically every pastor having different views from one another (even on the simplest things) instead of having one canon as Catholics do when following all three the Bible, the Traditions, and the Magisterium, to which I believe is best to submit to God.

[@raymondvasquez6967]

He had no authority to do this. He placed them in a separate section, often referred to as the "Apocrypha," indicating that while they were useful for reading, they were not considered equal to the canonical books of Scripture. This has caused confusion since, ignoring what Christians have always believed and taught since the beginning. There is a special place in hell for preachers like this according mystics of the Church (St. Frances of Rome talks about this).

[@Gamerad360]

@@raymondvasquez6967 This isn't quite true, technically even in the canon scripture some books were considered more or less inspired then others for instance revelation is considered much less inspired then Mathew, Mark, and Luke. Most early church fathers considered revelation non-canon.

[@raymondvasquez6967]

@@Gamerad360 In Catholic teaching, all books of the canonized Bible are considered equally inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church holds that every book of the Bible, including Revelation, is fully and equally inspired, meaning that all Scripture is considered the Word of God. While different books might be used for different purposes or might have been accepted into the canon at different times, the Church does not teach that any part of Scripture is "more" or "less" inspired than another. The idea that some books are "less inspired" than others does not align with Catholic doctrine. The Church Fathers debated the inclusion of certain books in the canon, including Revelation, but once the canon was settled by the Church, all the books were accepted as fully inspired.

[@mlast3264]

Great as usual

[@rufus-h4h]

Luther removed those books because the contradicted his opinions.

[@forrestgump5959]

I don't know in detail But somehow related read John 6 (6:66 coincidence about tripple6?) Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. __and walked no more with him. __ the chapter about HolyCommunion

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@rufus-h4h No, he removed those books because they violated the original rules for inclusion into the Canon of Scripture. The books of the Apocrypha, written during the period knpwn as the 400 silent years between Malachi and the birth of Jesus, were never considered to be part of the Hebrew Scriptures and that inclusion was the criterion for inclusion of texts outside of the New Testament texts in the Christian Bible.

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@forrestgump5959 The chapter and verse divisions were not in either the original Hebrew or Greek. They were added during the Medieval period, so any numerical correlation with the Mark of the Beast is purely coincidental.

[@russellmiles2861]

Except he didn't. The Lutheran Bible had 73 books.

[@forrestgump5959]

@@jamesdaniel1376 yes for sure. like this Isa 66:6 A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

[@ScreamingReel500]

The Great Schism was 1054 but the Bible which has 73 books was canonized by the Counsel of Hippo in 393 and counsel of Carthage in 397. The Counsel of Trent re affirmed the 73 books of the Bible which the same that we had today. So, The Orthodox stands are not correct. 6 centuries after the canonization the Bible then the Great Schism, which seems that there were already underlining problems in the Church before the split. One of the problems, as seems to be standing out, is disagreement in authority, The Pope and the college of Bishops vs "first among equal"/ the Patriarchs.

[@SacredReason]

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

[@Desert_Hermits]

Good Evening and Merry Christmas. I have a nagging question. What does the Church consider to be "the original texts of the sacred books", according to Dei Verbum 22 ? Thank you for your time.

[@seapanda-117]

Thanks for the video. I’ve been trying to learn more about Catholicism. My understanding is that the Septuagint is a specific translation of the OT that existed at the time and included the Protestant OT as well as the extra books that makes up the Catholic OT. (If this is incorrect, inform me so I can ask the question again or maybe that will answer my question.) Jesus may have quoted from the Septuagint, but did he quote from the deuterocanonical books?

[@dantankunfiveancestorsfist]

God instructed Adam and Eve don't eat the apple of good and evil, the consequences for disobeying would lead to seeing evil. Luther and other like him started to ripped the Bible against God's representative the Catholic church instructions it will destroy God's Words. And so, that is what happened Luther and like him disobeyed and ate the fruit of evil and knowledge and here we are now Protestant churches all running their own churches, Islam, Mormons, Jehovah etc. etc.

[@Sean-oh3ph]

The outro volume is too loud relative to the rest of the video. Great video, thanks!

[@jeremystrand7095]

The thought of reunification with the EO while agreeing to disagree on different Canon and even Dogma to reflect 11th/10th century belief rather than modern is fascinating. Translate that to Protestants, even though many would have to get over sacraments, etc you'd imagine then on the same basis that Protestants wouldn't have to adhere to the Deuterocanon Bible or 19th century Marian Dogmas while still honoring/venerating to the degree that the Reformers and the Catholic Church did in the 16th century.

[@SNS-f6g]

There are 22 letters in the New Testament from Romans to Revelation. 2 Thess 2:15 tells us "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the TRADITIONS that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a LETTER of OURS." Therefore, is most of the New Testament considered Apostolic Tradition?

[@MuneneCaleb]

Exactly, the source of Sacred Tradition

[@JayEhm1517]

Luther did not removed books from the Bible and Catholic Answers is not being truthful. It was American Bible publishers who removed them to save money printing them. Martin Luther translated the Apocrypha into German as part of his Bible translation, completed in 1534. However, like Jerome, he did not consider these books to be on the same level as the canonical Scriptures. He included them in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, with a preface stating: > "These are books that are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are useful and good to read." The books Luther translated as the Apocrypha included: Tobit Judith Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Baruch 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees The Additions to Daniel (e.g., The Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon) The Additions to Esther Luther’s translation of these books demonstrated his belief in their literary and historical value, even if he did not see them as divinely inspired Scripture. This practice influenced later Protestant traditions, which largely excluded the Apocrypha from their versions of the Bible, though some editions of the King James Bible and other Protestant Bibles included them for a time.

[@DoingitWrong]

Enlightening response, thank you Jimmy Aiken. I notice a pipe rack in the background. What is your favorite blend? Mine is Gawith & Hoggarth #7 broken flake.

[@hirakisk1973]

I could have sworn that I read a quote from an Early Church Father that said something along the lines that the Christians used the Greek Scriptures (Septuagint) that had more books than the Jewish OT scriptures. Also, that because the Jews changed their canon that Christians might forget this later and not include those books. Anyone remember/know who said this?

[@bwhennes]

"THERE CAN BE NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS THAN THOSE HERETICS WHO ADMIT THE WHOLE CYCLE OF DOCTRINE, , AND YET BY ONE WORD, AS WITH A DROP OF POISON, INFECT THE REAL AND SIMPLE FAITH TAUGHT BY OUR LORD AND HANDED DOWN BY APOSTOLIC TRATION." Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum.

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@bwhennes Heresy is in the eye of the beholder. To a Protestant, much of Catholic doctrine is made up out of thin air with no biblical support. Church leaders and traditions are fallible, the Bible is not, thus the Protestant rejection of papal bulls, etc. in favor of sola scriptura.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@jamesdaniel1376 Wrong, nobody though the bible alone was infallible before the reformation, and nowhere in the bible does it make this claim. So their standard for judging what is heresy and what is not is already founded on a false assumption that has no grounding in history or in scripture, it's self refuting.

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@matthewoburke7202 What a surprise, the Catholic monopoly didn't contradict official Catholic dogma. Your statement is pretty much impeachable as evidence, since the Catholic Church worked overtime to eliminate any competition by any means necessary. To require that the traditions of the Catholic Church fall in line with Scripture isn't self refuting as it's what the Bible actually commands and it's a safety measure that prevents popes from instituting pagan ideas and practices into Christian churches. A pope who is honest wouldn't have a problem with accountability, especially with being faithful to the Bible in light of Paul's teaching that, " ...let the spirits of the prophets be subject unto the prophets." 1 Cor. 14:32. And in another place, we are told that the Bereans searched the Scripures daily to check that the teachings, even those of the Apostle Paul, were in line with Scripture. Furthermore, the writers of the New Testament consistently referred back to the Old Testament prophecies to identify Jesus as the Messiah. Finally, Jesus consistently and often rebuked the Pharisees for adding their interpretations to the Law of Moses.

[@jamesdaniel1376]

@@matthewoburke7202 The Bible does indirectly claim infallibility by claiming to be a direct message from God who the Bible claims doesn't lie. In addition, Paul wrote, in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally in Greek it says it was Godbreathed) and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness..." The prophets of the Old Testament generally write that "The word of Yahweh came to me saying..." before making a pronouncement which, unless you demonstrate that God lies or is not omniscient would be a pretty good case for the infallibility of Scripture, at least the prophetic oracles. What we can state with 100% certainty is that the Bible never speaks highly of traditions of men, i.e. the religious leadership of the Pharisees who were also very sure of the righteousness of their decrees. Until Jesus came by.

[@happybeejv]

Actually paul only wrote 7 epistles that are in the canon bible 1&2 Timothy Titus, and 2 Thessalonians are considered forgeries, And hebrews used to be considered written by paul But nobody thinks so now

[@calebklingerman7902]

Didn't Jerome himself say the deuterocanonical books should not have been included?

[@therealong]

NO!

[@calebklingerman7902]

@@therealong According to Catholic Answers he did, atlhough he obviously deferred to Church teaching since he translated them anyway. I only brought it up to highlight the fact that it was not a unified or infallible opinion.

[@linsodtf2645]

I mean he said they shouldn't however that wasn't his job to decide several councils from all across the catholic world said they were. Jerome was a biblical genius and a master of like 5 languages but it wasn't his job to decide the cannon.

[@therealong]

​@@calebklingerman7902 Since your OP was resuscitated after two months, I'd like to add that the story that circulates mostly in non-Catholic Church history books is that St. Jerome -- on a second thought -- wanted, or better "suggested", to add or even modify some previous terms he had used by translating them directly from the Hebrew OT texts rather than from the actual LXX. That might have been plausible, if not even obvious so punctilious he was, since certain native terms would have given a clearer translation than the classic Greek could have ever given. However that wouldn't have affected the overall interpretation. But to blow the story up claiming he said "this or that", or even that Pope Damasus "categorically" denied to grant it, would certainly be to stretch it too far, as unfortunately it often happens in this cases. After all the LXX was what the non-Hebrew-speaking Jews as well as early Christians had been using. Not to mention that the NT includes ca. 2/3 of the LXX OT rather than of the Hebrew one. Therefore a "let's leave it as it is" from Pope Damasus sounds wisely enough to my ears. I hope this might add some hints to what you have heard CA said.

[@tonyl3762]

Luther appealed to Jerome, not that that matters, but seems like should've been addressed briefly.

[@seanbrittmusic]

Very interesting insight from Ratzinger. Lord have mercy

[@garchomp-if7514]

0:45 the majority was 24 vs 15, 16 abstaining at Trent while yes majority, not a sweeping one.

[@forrestgump5959]

2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. __So then, __ __brothers, __ __stand firm, __ __and __ __cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, __ __either __ _______by word of mouth ________ ____________or ____________ _______by our letter. _______

[@John-critic]

0:23 Luther was not the first protestant reformer, he was just the first one not murdered by the RCC see Jan Hus.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

There have been heretical groups since the beginning. That's why St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote "Against Heresies" in about 180 A.D. Groups formed early on, going off with their own teachings, yet still called themselves "Christian." That's why the original was named "Katholikos" by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, even earlier, in about 107 A.D. The invention of the printing press made it easier for Protestants to spread their errors. Execution by Church authorities themselves has been rare. Most often it was done by secular authorities, against the will of Church authorities who call heretics to repentance and wish for their return to the one true Church. "Good Queen Bess" was more like "Bloody Bess" for the number of priests in hiding that she had hunted down, quartered, and dragged through the streets as a warning to Catholics.

[@John-critic]

@@julieelizabeth4856 You say >> St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote "Against Heresies" in about 180 A.D. > Groups formed early on, going off with their own teachings, yet still called themselves "Christian." That's why the original was named "Katholikos" by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, even earlier, in about 107 A.D.> The invention of the printing press made it easier for Protestants to spread their errors. > Execution by Church authorities themselves has been rare. Most often it was done by secular authorities, > "Good Queen Bess" was more like "Bloody Bess" In government, Elizabeth was more moderate than her father and siblings had been.[3] One of her mottoes was video et taceo ("I see and keep silent").[4] In religion, she was relatively tolerant and avoided systematic persecution. After the pope declared her illegitimate in 1570, which in theory released English Catholics from allegiance to her, several conspiracies threatened her life, all of which were defeated with the help of her ministers' secret service, run by Sir Francis Walsingham.< So Queen Elizabeth 1 deals with traitors to her government and these traitors were actually instigated by the pope. So please do not blame the queen for something that was instigated by the pope. Ultimately it was the pope who caused this issue and not the queen, she just reacted to So tell me, why do you believe you will be with GOD our FATHER in heaven on judgement day?

[@therealong]

@@John-critic Did you confect your own history and now you are testing if it holds water? Why don't you rather say what beliefs you pretend to represent, so it would be more clearly for the reader what position you actually hold? First of all do you live in EU or in the US, or in similar overseas anglophone countries?

[@John-critic]

@@therealong You say >> Did you confect your own history and now you are testing if it holds water? > Why don't you rather say what beliefs you pretend to represent, > so it would be more clearly for the reader what position you actually hold? > First of all do you live in EU or in the US, or in similar overseas anglophone countries?

[@therealong]

@@John-critic I'll load the main page and I'll have a look at all you've put together so far with the "you say >>" and "I say >>" game...

[@simonewilliams7224]

Luther can’t be trusted as are others because of their Pride. Just read them in a Catholic Bible, they make affirmations by their association and correlations of the greater Books they clarify the.

[@corvinmull2408]

As a Lutheran, thank you for the even keeled answer. All 3 broad groups (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) feel the Holy Spirit led us to the correct canon. Unfortunately, from my understanding, even the Hebrew Scriptures from before and during the time of Christ were inconsistent in their composure. So I fear we may never truly unite around a common canon of scripture😢

[@hamie7624]

We can if the prots give up their pride and submit to Rome

[@healhands5760]

this is the reason why the Church decided which Scriptures are "Holy Spirit-inspired". because not all hebrew Scriptures tells the "Truth". Thus, removing the final canon is literally wrong.

[@richardmh1987]

Well, with al due respect to the Jewish, had the Church decided based on their canon, all of the New Testament would be gone.

[@st.michaelthearchangel7774]

@hamie7624 Truth. 😆 That would be a huge miracle, because man-oh-man do a lot of Protestants have an incredible aversion to Catholicism. It’s really sad, because they essentially have willingly take a gun and shot themselves in both hands and feet by rejecting what Christ offers to humanity in His Church.

[@maxellton]

But for about 1000 years, most Christians used 73 books. Besides this, if you say that the Bible is the sole authority and the 66 books are the correct canon, then for almost 1800 years, there has been no authority(before 400, there was no Bible) or reliable authority. Any dogmas or doctrines that you developed before 1800 are all questionable. So God waited 1800 years before he gave us a complete and reliable understanding of the Christian faith.

[@amarsh14]

Luther removed the Books because they disagreed with his theology. He tried to get rid of James’s epistle as well!

[@docsavage8640]

💯 he couldn't win debates as long as the Bible contradicted his ideology, so his solution was to change the Bible rather than alter his ideology. Pure arrogance.

[@frankkhethanidubedube919]

Those books were manufactured by catholics.. I'm glad I'm not a catholic.. I will never be one , as they have done so much evil in africa.. eg presenting European Jesus with blue eyes.. which is idolatry.. so catholics are the least people to call anything holy .. If catholics know holy spirit, they should be holy as catholics but guess all evil in the world passes through the pope .

[@frankkhethanidubedube919]

Catholics hijacked Judaism and manufactured Christianity.. sadly jewish jesus did not start this religion..

[@dashriprock5720]

Who put the deuterocanonical writings in the Septuagint in the first place? Jewish rabbis translators. That being said, are those books necessary? Is there anything in there that will change what we believe? I've only read some passages, I plan on reading it all someday, but for now there is so much to learn and understand in the 66 books. The passages I've read, don't feel inspired. There are no prophets during the 2nd temple period that God is speaking to.

[@airone50]

I think the canonicity of the scriptures is so far down the list should a reuniting of Eastern Orthodox and the Latin Western Church its really speculative. I prefer that the cannons to be as the faith tradition that they originated. There was really no closing of the cannons till quite late and the accepting of what was canonical was largely predicated on synodal consensus. North African cannons varied from Asian cannons. All other protocanonical works are understood to be valid as long as they were determined to be non heretical and d outside a faith tradition. I find the Epistle of Clement was very instructive in understanding and it was a canonical book for some time but it has been view like many books as valid and good for reading and instruction at home. I love the protoevangelium of James and find it valid for home instruction and if the priest teaches on this tradition its fine. Its so moving but we do not do readings from it during liturgy. That said so many of our prayers and hymns are inspired by these wonderful texts and yet they were all called scripture.

[@uncatila]

Dr Bergsma cites 360 new testament quotes from the Septuagint and only 33 hebrew quotes i. The new testament.

[@quesostuff1009]

….but Luther didn’t remove the books…he just labeled them as not scripture but good works. He even gave praise to some of em and included them in his German translated bible

[@RedRiverMan]

dude, thats removing. the bible (even the parts he accepted) said you should not do so.

[@0...00..19]

Is not the Word of God referening Jesus Christ and the message thatbGodnhas revealed to us? With that being said, i think as long as books are not being purposely ignored, it's not for anyone else to decide based on theology

[@johnpaul-mp7zc]

I heard the Jewish people decided against the last 5 o5 6 books in the O.T. was because they were written in greek instead of Hebrew

[@lmaoyourekiddingme]

Multiple Councils disagree

[@richlopez5896]

Jews reject all 27 books of the New Testament and have zero say on Christian canon. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo “[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397] St. Augustine of Hippo “The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . There are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]

[@MrJoebrooklyn1969]

I'm confused, what did he mean the Church did infallibley declare them being Cannical? I thought the entire Bible was Cannonized in the 300s AD?

[@MathAdam]

As I understand it, the canon defined in the 300s was confirmed (infallibility) at Trent.

[@ST-ov8cm]

What was decided at the councils in the late 4th century regarding the canon was never infallibly defined. The Church doesn’t make infallible proclamations until she has to. So, at the Council of Trent the Church infallibly ratified what the councils of the late 300’s defined.

[@joshuapeter4254]

The status of these books was always debated. Some councils and fathers accepted them, some did not.

[@mikecastelluccio7072]

@@joshuapeter4254 Sorry, Josh. I don’t believe that’s true. But I could be mistaken. What early church fathers or councils are you referring to?

[@gordonweintraub6634]

@@mikecastelluccio7072 The most common Church Father I've seen pointed to is St. Jerome, who translated the Greek version (using the Hebrew version for correction) into the Latin Vulgate, and in so doing, actually coined the term "Apocrypha," at least that's the tradition.

[@gemum4219]

I bet that if some of the individuals of the Church had not rubbed Luther the wrong way or not been arrogant (IF that is the case, but I believe there were dug in heels sometimes which can cause the opposite effect) Luther might have neutralized his position some or pushed less hard. Somewhere I read or heard that Luther never gave a really good reason for some of his views, it amounted to 'because I think so.'

[@Riskcap]

JEROME would not translate the apocrypha, several within the Catholic religion refused them. Reasoning - he felt they were not inspired as they are not. Ben Sira was written by his grandson and talks harshly about widows you know the examples Jesus used for a sinner who treated widows unfairly. Maccabees 1 and 2 contradict each other but lets not forget there is 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 as well. These books may be and are valuable but do not seem inspired.

[@alannahmay3823]

This is your opinion. Many Catholic scholars and ecclesiastical leaders disagree.

[@goldeneagle2066]

Luther did not take out any books from the bible. Dont lie to your audience or viewers. Luther cut away the catholic money making scheme called purgatory. No where in ANY bible is there any mention purgatory. Once again, luther removed exactly zero books from the bible. So stop lying. You have no idea what you're talking about. Deutoromine is in my bible. I am wels lutheran. You have no clue what you're talking about.

[@georgepierson4920]

You need to work on your typing.

[@georgepierson4920]

What authority did Luther have to do anything?

[@Hallow334]

What I find interesting is that Jews don't accept 1 & 2 Maccabees, but celebrate Hanukah, which was born in Maccabees. They would not have Hanukah, if not for Maccabees.

[@johnosumba1980]

They didn’t want to have similar canon to the Catholic ones, though they believed in them, otherwise Protestants went with the Jewish canon.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@Hallow334 No, Jews accept those books as important history. They know they are not inspired scripture, unlike "Catholics".

[@joycegreer9391]

@@johnosumba1980 Again, you don't know anything.

[@johnosumba1980]

@@joycegreer9391 and you know everything? That is the pride of the devil that led to its downfall. Otherwise I can show you how Protestants did it.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@johnosumba1980 You are only showing how you think that is you. You have the pride and deception of the devil.

[@theohafner1857]

Thanks for keeping us informed, Jimmy. One mistake to point out, however. You should be referring to our Orthodox brothers as Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. When you refer to them as Eastern you are eliminating the largest community of Orthodox Christians in Africa, namely, the Coptic Orthodox, composing upwards of 60 million followers worldwide. They are not Eastern Orthodox; rather, they are Oriental Orthodox. The Armenians, Ethiopic, and some Syrian and Indian communions are also Oriental Orthodox.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

1 Timoty 4.1-5 : The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

[@louisboshoff9701]

Was the man that changed the 10 commanments...

[@MalachiWhite-tw7hl]

Very "convenient" comment guidelines--if you're Catholic. The RCC, which I totally respect, gradually adopted (some) of the insights of Luther's theology. Hope that all RCC members know enough of history to realize that.

[@jdmonroe08]

Sola Scriptura…you know, The Bible Alone, The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and everything is true in it…except stuff we don’t like, so we’ll get rid of that part of the inerrant Word of God, but keep the rest.

[@narrowistheway77]

@@jdmonroe08 GOD doesn’t contradict himself, the 7 books in contention contain contradictions to other books in scripture, and that’s why they’re not GOD breathed. They were originally declared Deuterocanonical in the early Church councils, and that literally means secondary canon, as in not part of the primary canon. Roman Catholics always conveniently leave that part of Church history out. Furthermore the only council in the history of the Church to elevate those books to scripture was Trent, and Trent was a council where the true Church was absent from the meeting and is therefore invalid

[@breath9172]

​@@narrowistheway77 I appreciate the points you made, just an opinion that 'secondary' does not mean additional, or that it's any less true, from my reading it's because the books appeared after Ezras death, who collated the first cannon. To me it makes sense, hardly has God ever revealed everything at once, there was about 2 000 years between Abraham and Jesus (I think), and we are living 2 000 years after Jesus (in the New Covenant after the Old) and waiting for him to come again at a time only God knows. Through all of history God has revealed himself in some way and continues to do so even after the Bible has been written... that's why we all have some personal testimony, if not multiple. You also mentioned that at the Council of Trent, the true Church was not present. I do not claim to know everything about Church history as I am still learning, so this is a genuine question when I ask according to who? And what is the true Church? Finally, from my research, multiple Councils affirmed that the books where canonical in addition to Trent ... e.g. Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397). I guess this answer depends on the sources you use though, saw these in the Catholic and Orthodox resources, Protestant ones I used (about 3 or 4) only talked about Trent only. Also, I hope my words don't come out as harsh or accusatory, I actually dislike the back and forth we have as Christians, to some degree, we are all just trying to figure it out, but your response just stood out to me and made me think, which I appreciate. May the Lord bless you.

[@raymondvasquez6967]

@@narrowistheway77 Not acccording to the Church Jesus founded. Protestanism is man-made fallacy contraditing what has always been believed and taught since Jesus founded His Church.

[@narrowistheway77]

@@raymondvasquez6967 you’re not a member of the true Catholic Church, you’re a member of the Roman Catholic apostasy. You can call yourselves Catholic, but the apostles themselves bear witness against you. I’m also not from the Protestant reformation either, and that’s a straw man position anyways because the only merits of salvation are a belief in an uncorrupted gospel, which is something you’ve already denied in a separate thread which means you’re condemned to hell when you die unless you repent and put true faith in the true Christ. My Church tradition broke with Rome when bishops in the Church started calling themselves “Father” and adding traditions of men to scripture just as the Pharisees that Christ condemned had done. Paul prophesied this would occur as well. Proto-Protestant churches all go back to the original church and carry apostolic succession. Your church is a lie and does not hold the gospel of grace. You might know some things about Jesus, but you do not know him according to his own word. Matthew 7:21-23 is written for men like you. I hope and pray you come to salvation before you die, forever in hell is literally forever, and we all deserve to go to hell, trust that Jesus Christ truly paid your price in full is your only way out of that situation. Your belief in purgatory among other heresies condemns you

[@narrowistheway77]

@@breath9172 the true Church is the Bride of Christ with the simple and uncorrupted gospel and is not under the curses of Galatians chapter 1 where Paul twice cursed anyone who preached a separate gospel than the apostles. Roman Catholicism has no connection with that gospel. It’s a system of merited grace that according to the apostles condemns men to hell. You have a simple choice, believe Jesus Christ’s death on the cross paid 100% of your sins past, present, and future and receive the Holy Ghost, enter into his grace, and know with assurance that upon your death you’ll be with him. Or you can believe any other thing and go to hell. That includes trusting in a different version of Christ and believing more is necessary for salvation, that you need extra merits for grace, and that when you die you need to purge your own sinfulness before entering GOD’s presence. Name one New Testament apostle who preached a gospel that included that, it didn’t happen. Gospel comes from the word Evangelion(Ευαγγέλιο), and it literally means “good news”. It’s good news that Christ did everything for us, and it’s terrible news to believe that we still need to merit ourselves for heaven because we will never be good enough. The Book of Hebrews calls the belief that we can pay our own price in any way, shape, or form “as crucifying Christ afresh and making his sacrifice of no effect”. It literally tells us that this is a path to eternal hell. Justification is salvation through trust that Jesus Christ did it all, whereas Sanctification is a much longer process that only occurs after salvation. Paul likened salvation to drinking a pure milk and sanctification to eating meat. Paul said anyone who drank the milk would enter heaven. Meat is important, but you need to drink the milk first. As for the councils, we never have a council that enters these contentious 7 books into primary canon, they’re all left as Deuterocanonical. This word is Greek and it means “secondary canon”, and it was clarifying that they were not pronounced Holy Spirit breathed. To be 100% honest, Job and Esther were also labeled Deuterocanonical, none of the early councils were ready to call them 100% primary canon yet because there was too much contention surrounding them. Here’s why we can easily affirm Job, because James Chapter 5 quotes the book as scripture. That’s not the only reason though, it has epiphanies of Christ yet to come woven into it, it doesn’t contradict any other part of scripture, and it helps clarify other parts of scripture which is a hallmark of true canon. Esther is a book that even the Jews debated the merits of for quite some time, it’s even the only book never found in the caves of Qumran with the other Dead Sea Scrolls. That said, it does meet the merits of scripture for a myriad of reasons which are both historical and in terms of prophetic significance. Among those things we can see GOD’s plan to preserve his people(the Israelites) unfold in the book. The book features true historical events like how the King of the Book is who we call Xerxes in English today and how we can see in the book that he’s preparing his empire for the invasion of Greece which would be the same campaign that famously had the battle of Thermopylae and Battle of Marathon. The writer of the book is also now verified to have had firsthand knowledge of the interior of the Persian Palace at Susa based on the archaeology done there in modern times, something that no one without direct Palace access could have gotten correctly. There’s more I could say about this, but it’s not a controversial issue anymore since Roman Catholicism and the true Christian tradition both verify Job and Esther in modern times. The council of Trent is the only council to ever verify the other 7 books, none of which feature Christological epiphanies, true prophecy, and many of them are in direct conflict with other Biblical books. These books as a great resource for understanding inter-testimental Jewish history, but they hold no other value. There’s another thing I can say as well, GOD actually made a picture of his completed Holy Bible in Exodus Chapter 25. He not breaks the Bible down into the 66 books, he puts them into categories together that hold the same themes and story arcs. It’s the Golden Menorah in that chapter. You have to make a picture of the way it’s described in that chapter to fully understand it, but essentially you have 7 candlesticks all coming from the same base, the ornaments have three separate parts each and 6 of the candlesticks have 3 of those 3 part ornaments on each, and the middle candlestick features 4 of those 3 part ornaments. You end up with 66 unique parts featured on the candlesticks unified on a single menorah. Jesus uses the same symbolism in Revelation to describe his Church divided into 7 separate groups and the true Church comes from his pure word. He’s literally showing us through this how his completed word would be broken down all the way back when Moses wrote the Torah. This is a much longer conversation, but nonetheless there’s not 73 books, there’s only 66. I’ve heard some ridiculous claims about the number 66 over the years by Roman Catholics, and how 73 is a superior number. But they never treat 66 as the actual number 66, they always treat it like it somehow has a mystical relationship with the mark of the beast(which is literally 600 away from it) or how it’s two separate 6’s(which adds up to 12 btw, one of GOD’s favorite numbers). They never examine any Biblical examples of the number 66 and it ultimately comes down to applying pagan practices to numbers just to badmouth the number. Unless GOD has something to say about a number, I personally dismiss it, and 66 shows up quite clearly on the Holy Menorah that stood in the Tabernacle of GOD. Ultimately all that matters is a pure and unadulterated gospel. We do not add traditions of men to the merits of salvation otherwise we fall under the curses Paul gave in Galatians Chapter 1. The Roman Catholic Church is under those curses and the testimony of GOD condemns this organization. They are not the only Church tracing itself back to the apostles, that’s a tired old lie they tell. Paul wrote to Timothy and prophesied that as soon as he died wolves went enter the Church intent on devouring it internally. The truly faithful always just stuck with GOD’s own word in scripture and broke with any tradition that welcomed in heresy. If we want to talk about when Catholicism drifted into Romanism, I’d say the 4th century, but if we are talking about when the Roman Catholic Church completely abandoned the gospel and drifted into an outright paganized Christianity, I’d say the 8th century. Those are long conversations as well. I’ll pray for you! Trust that Christ truly did it all, don’t add to that, and don’t take away from that, if you do that then you will be saved! GOD Bless! ❤️

[@winpointfire]

He did not answer the question "why".

[@junramos2002]

Anybody or any religion can claim the HS lead them to accept/reject books. For those outside your religion, the selection was made by your leaders. For those within your religion, it was the HS. Simple. ;-)

[@therealong]

*@junramos2002* And you where did you get them from? Are you a follower of any religion in particular?

[@hamie7624]

Imagine caring what the people who chose barabbas think is scripture.

[@darewan8233]

Thanks to Mr Akin for acknowledging Luther was not unique in rejecting the Deuteros. Only thing is that he said it was a majority who received them... I would add, in the West maybe, but not in the East. Respect.

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

This video is misleading. Luther never removed any books from the Bible. The books of the Apocrypha were not included in the list of Bible books at the Council of Nicaea, 325. Also, the Jews when finalizing their canon of Scripture at Jamnia in 90 AD, never recognized them as canonical. Mileto, presumably the second pastor at Sardis and a certified Old Testament scholar, never granted the books of the Apocrypha a place in the Old Testament canon. You only have to read them to understand why. They lack authority. As for the passage which allows for prayers for the dead that amounts to a blatant contradiction of Luke 16:19-31. Purgatory is a fiction. Luther had his faults but tampering with the Bible was not one of them The Council of Trent added books to the Bible. That is what happened.

[@michaelhoerig5920]

Wrong! Trent added nothing to the BIble! They merely affirmed the decisions of previous councils. If Luther didn't 'tamper' with the BIble, how did he arrive at his 'sola' theologies, all of which are absolutely non-Biblical?

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

@@michaelhoerig5920 I would argue with you but I have discovered that Roman Catholics are brainwashed even more than Mormons. I will just say this. If you can read the Bible and stay a Catholic there is no hope for your soul. Just the Book of Romans puts an end to Popery from which I turn away for fear of offending God.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

Still waiting for C.A. to provide some documentation where Luther removed anything. You all talk the talk. Can you walk the walk? Its your claim, pony up.

[@markh7175]

Luther had them in his translation. He, just as Jerome believed when Jerome translated, believed the extra books were good for edifying the church, but not scriptural.

[@dougmasters4561]

Thats essentially the same as removing them, relegating them to apocrypha.

[@raymondvasquez6967]

@@dougmasters4561 True dat.

[@narrowistheway77]

@@dougmasters4561 the early Church councils called them Deuterocanonical, that literally means “second canon” as in not primary canon and not GOD Breathed. The only council in the history of Roman Catholicism to declare otherwise was Trent, and Trent broke with tradition. Get your facts straight

[@richlopez5896]

St. Jerome included them in his translation called the vulgate. The Bible has always included them. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo "It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397] St. Augustine of Hippo “The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

[@narrowistheway77]

@@richlopez5896 Saint Jerome never translated them, they’re the only books in the Latin Vulgate that were added after his death and weren’t translated by him. He absolutely rejected those books, it’s a well known part of the history of the Latin Vulgate

[@michaelcase8574]

A main reason why the Jews dropped these books, is because they were written in Greek and not Hebrew.

[@blessedone8989]

"And anything that happens centuries after the time of Christ is something that Christians shoudln't be relying on upon as authoritative for us" Oh man Jimmy that was a good one, thanks I needed that laugh. i'm going to keep this quote, it is going to come in very handy in discussions with RCC members.

[@billrupert7560]

Also, I think it was pretty stupid for him to look to the Jews for where to get his canon of scripture from. You know what other books the Jews don't accept in the canon? The entire New Testament

[@danielcristancho3524]

Why? Because, those 7 books were never part of the original 66 canon. They also weren't in the original Jewish canon. Therefore, not the word of God and finally, the books are full of historical errors. Nebuchadnezzar was never king of Ninevah. Ever. And that's no rare fluke. There are many more historical errors in Judith. Either the Holy Spirit was ignorant of history, or the Holy Spirit had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOOK OF JUDITH.

[@manuelpompa-u5e]

the 7 books rejected by luther, were rejected correctly, because old testament books were written by prophets, and there were no prophets from 400 b.c. until john the baptist, and the rejected works were in this period. the critical macabees 2, was simply a historical work regarding the great jewish rebellion against the helenistic syrian king antionichus.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

Youre right about the 'silent years' but Luther translated the apocrypha. He rejected their inspiration but translated them anyway. Jerome did the same thing.

[@mikekennedy8501]

Because they where not considered scripture

[@DoingItTheHardWayAgain]

To quote Luther himself: "because I willed it". Jesus taught us to pray The Our Father and to quote: "May Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Luther isn't God. Enough said. Tenete Traditiones God bless

[@paulmilne3242]

Those books wer very simply not cannonical in the first place. period.

[@Richard-e5m]

Luther didn't remove the books. His canon was the same canon accepted by the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 3rd century.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

and the the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 3rd century recocnized Mary as the Mother of GOD.

[@Richard-e5m]

@@adelbertleblanc1846 Just because they get one thing right, does not mean they got everything right. And, with Mary, they got it wrong.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

@@Richard-e5m Well noticed : You do not recocgnize Jesus as SON of Mary.

[@Richard-e5m]

@@adelbertleblanc1846 That's hilarious. I have said nothing that comes close implying that.

[@adelbertleblanc1846]

@@Richard-e5m ok, If You believe that Mary is the Mother of GOD, so accept her in your life. Because JESUS accepted HER in his life !

[@Tomas-to9kz]

It's been said that he was bipolar. Perhaps he was having one of his depressive episodes.

[@shqipebelgjike1274]

So the guy was sola scriptura but wanted to remove book of revelation while it LITERALLY STATES to not remove or add anything in that book? So he was only sola scriptura when it benefited him and his teachings?

[@russellmiles2861]

The Lutheran Bible has 73 books. The Geneva Bible has 73 books. The KJV has 73 books Move on

[@julieelizabeth4856]

The British and Foreign Bible Society basically put the final stamp on the Protestant canon by becoming the first major printer of Protestant Bibles in the 1800's. Fewer books made them cheaper to produce. Always follow the money.

[@MathAdam]

When the church infallibility declared the 73 books to be scripture, did they close the door to adding additional books in the future?

[@hamie7624]

Council of Rome, Carthage, and Trent

[@a.ihistory5879]

The issue with the Catholic church is that they think it's okay to use the deuterocanonical books to make doctrines. That is why there were so many issues with the Council of Trent

[@enderwiggen3638]

It’s been centuries, the canon was set in the 5th century based on tradition. Everything they did since to confirm the canon didn’t change the list

[@wms72]

Yes, they closed the door

[@joshuacherian6718]

Luther given a chance would write a new bible..🤪😂

[@ContendingEarnestly]

*Luther given a chance would write a new bible.* He and his team did translate a German edition. The n.t. was completed in 1522. The o.t. in 1534. And there is nothing in it you can't read in a catholic edition of the bible. So what are you talking about?

[@joshuacherian6718]

@@ContendingEarnestly Luther controversially added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith". The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts, but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb "alone" was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul's intended meaning according to his interpretation, and that sola had been used in Western theological tradition before him. Many Protestant scholars have noted the bias in Luther's translation, The 2017 version has added footnotes on Romans 1:17, Romans 2:13, Romans 3:21, and Romans 3:28 that warn about the deliberate mistranslations Luther committed. Another controversial translation in the 1522 New Testament is 1 Timothy 2:4, which translates that God wills that all men "be helped" (German: geholfen werden) rather than the expected "be saved" for Greek. Luther did not know ancient Greek well, and when he referenced the Greek New Testament, he relied on his friend Melanchthon and a number of other philologists. Significant changes correcting Luther's translations were made in the 2017 version of the Luther Bible. Luther also added German legal terminology which is not found in the original text, for example Denkzettel in Matthew 23:5.[34] There were also many understandable mistranslations due to a lack of knowledge, such as in Psalms 104 where he mistranslated chamois as "rabbit" because he did not know what a chamois was.🤣🤪😆

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@joshuacherian6718 *Luther controversially added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28* I know, and he tells us why he did it. Did you know that the Douay Rheims, an older version of it removed 'repent' or 'repentance' and replaced it with penance...50 times! Thats five zero times. Not once, but 50. And i don't recall the rcc ever publishing anything explaining why they did it. As for the rest of your post, cite your sources. Or link to where i can find it. I have Luther's 1545 bible and it says be saved, not helped. So show me where you got this from.

[@edithhewson7208]

Martin Luther was not first Reformer

[@richlopez5896]

Martin Luther was not even a reformer. He was a heretic who was excommunicated from the Church. Pope Pius V was the reformer of the Church in the 1500's.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

This is a very deceptive title. Luther removed nothing. Catholic scholars agree. When he finished the bible in 1534 all seven books were there. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the apocrypha, he was a contemporary of Luther. Gregory the Great rejected part of the apocrypha, he was bishop of Rome. Jerome rejected all of it even though he translated them in the Vulgate. The late 4th century councils didn't settle the canon either. Trent did, session 4, 1546. I guess lying in the title gets more clicks.

[@maxellton]

Who is Cardinal Cajetan? Is he the Church? Jerome did not reject them; he just questioned them. But in the end, he submitted to the Church.

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@maxellton Hilarious. You all say the canon was settled in the 4th century. I show you multiple people, catholics that reject that notion and all of a sudden they have to speak for the church. Damasus didn't declare squat. Proof of that is all those that reject that canon! And no, Jerome didn't submit to the church. If you think he did then cite your sources.

[@richlopez5896]

Early Councils did settle the issue of canon. The Ecumenical Council of Trent simply did it infallibly. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo “It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]

[@ContendingEarnestly]

@@richlopez5896 All the acts of Rome 382 were lost. We only know of a list because a north african group took notes and passed them on to Hippo. They were read at Hippo but not approved. They were read at Carthage and approved. These were not definitive lists, de fide dogma otherwise all those other catholics ive listed wouldn't have gone against it; Jerome, Gregory, Cardinal Cajetan and others. The only time the canon was dogmatically declared for rome is session 4, 1546 at Trent. Not before.

[@docsavage8640]

Luther was the worst combination of arrogance and ignorance

[@billybobwombat2231]

If you find your own healthy spirituality in the world that surrounds you , you don't need a bible, making what Luther or the church did to the book a moot worry , live life without a bible and grow your mind

[@william3347]

Because those were not in the original Jewish Canon? Luther did not leave the Catholic Church - he was excommunicated

[@richlopez5896]

The various Jewish sects had various canons. today's Jews still don't have a universal canon. Christianity has had a 73 book canon since 382. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo “It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]

Because he was a narcissist and stupid. He objected to indulgences and venerating relics. He also lied about the eucharist so to destroy that. He repented in his later life, acknowledging his writings were bogus saying he wanted none of the Protestant insurrection resultants. He substituted his judgment in place of the almost 400 well educated RC theologians who composed the original bible. He tore out books which supported venerating relics and indulgences.

[@jmh7977]

Short answer: Luther didn't remove any books, though he, like every theologian at the time, shared his opinions. The 66 book Canon that Protestants today mostly utilize was formalized by the followers of John Calvin at Geneva, not by Martin Luther. However, other Protestant groups largely followed suit after being collectively anathemized at the Council of Trent, including the Evangelical Catholics (later called "Lutherans" as a slur by their opponents). The Counter-Reformation entrenched and affirmed the deuterocanonical books as officialized Canon only in reaction to published Protestant reservations. In fact, when Martin Luther had his German Bible published, all the deuterocanonical were included. It was the followers of John Calvin in Geneva who agreed to a 66 book Canon. Villainize Martin Luther all you desire but please treat history with more honesty. The best Catholic historians admit to this, and yet are still faithfully Catholic. History is history and is neither Catholic or Protestant or Greek.

[@fantasia55]

Deuterocanonical books were not removed from Protestant bibles until the 19th century.

[@joannc147]

Great post! Thoughtful and instructive. Thank you.

[@wms72]

Luther followed Jews, not the Holy Spirit

[@velkyn1]

these cultists can't agree on most anything. No surprise that one side decides it needs to make itself "special" but declaring only its version is the right one.

[@beautardyartist]

The 4 Gospels only/

[@chapagawa]

I am pretty sure the Catholic Church added those books after the reformation. Also kinda interesting that the Tanakh does not include the apocrypha, so more reason not to include in the canon. Luther did leave the apocrypha and the New Testament books as good for study, but not enough evidence to include as scripture. This was the way it was since the early church, so the pope needs to explain why in 1500s there suddenly was a good reason to make them canon. Either way, protestants do refer to the non-canon books, so what’s the prob, bro. Other than a power grab.

[@suem6004]

@@chapagawa haha Luther removed the books. Looked one way pre Luther then fewer books post Luther

[@chapagawa]

@@suem6004 In your dreams.

[@richlopez5896]

Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo “It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]

[@davidcrane6593]

They conflicted with other scriptures... so they can't be God inspired.

[@therealong]

*@davidcrane6593* Care to give a little example?

[@davidcrane6593]

@@therealong The New Testament apocrypha are writings by early Christians that include accounts of Jesus, his teachings, and his family, followers, and friends. These texts were written in the first three centuries, and some may have been written as early as the late first century. They contain a variety of stories about Jesus, including his childhood, his passion, and his miracles:     Childhood The apocrypha tell stories of Jesus' healing powers as a child, including healing a man's foot, a sick child, a workman, and a poisoned boy. They also include stories of Jesus challenging Jewish rabbis who try to teach him, and of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph being confronted by their Jewish neighbors because of Jesus' miracles.   Passion Some apocryphal accounts of Jesus' passion say that he only appeared to suffer and die on the cross, a doctrine called Docetism.  Miracles The apocrypha also include stories of Jesus performing other miracles, such as carrying water on a cloth, producing a feast from a grain, and stretching a beam of wood to help his father build a bed.  Although some early Christians cited the apocrypha as scripture, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches generally do not consider them to be part of the Bible. The church of Rome systematically destroyed the apocrypha in the fourth and fifth centuries to solidify its power over other forms of Christianity.   Brandon W. Hawk

[@therealong]

​@@davidcrane6593 This video is not talking about all the other suspicious gospels after the 1st century AD, but only about the OT's *7* extra Deuterocanonical Books, if you know which they are, that are in the Catholic Bibles. The Greek word *Deutero* just means *_second, secondary_* . E.g., as the 5th Moses' Book is called *Deuteronomy* ('Second Law' - although it is a recapitulation, completion and explanation of the same Mosaic Law), also the second part of the Prophet Isaiah's Book, from ch. 40-55, are called *Deutero-Isaiah* . Hence they were *_never_* considered *Apocrypha* (hidden away) in the first place, and it is wrong to have called them so, since they were *_in_* the Hebrew OT's translation into Greek (the LXX) from the very beginning, that goes back as early as to the 3rd century BC. Does this help to better clarifying?

[@therealong]

@@davidcrane6593 BTW, what did all of these -->   ... you pasted represent?

[@davidcrane6593]

@@therealong they seem to be missing.. it's easy to look up and find how the apocryphal books conflict with known authoritative scripture of Truth.... who would want to read a book that contains falsehoods? It would be like conversing with a trans person who tells you they are a different sex than what is obvious to the eye.

[@DeVo35]

He couldn’t handle The Truth.

[@stephenkneller9318]

He never addresses the fact that Rome did not finally declare its biblical canon until the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent on eighth of April, 1546. By then, Luther’s German translation of the Bible, which included the Apocrypha, had already been published for over a decade. Also, while it is true that versions of the Septuagint included some of the Apocryphal Books, again we must ask which ones. Let’s look at three of the oldest extant manuscripts. The Fourth Century Vaticanus includes Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, it does not include any of the Maccabees books. The Fourth Century Sinaiticus includes Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, as well as 1st and 4th Maccabees. The Fifth Century Alexandrinus includes Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, as well as all four books of Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon. There are also other manuscripts which include, in whole or part, but not all together, Esther, 1 Esdras, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Jeremiah, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremy. Also consider St. Jerome. As he translated the Bible into Latin, he argued that the Apocryphal Books should not be part of the Bible. And, even when told to include them, he still chose not to translate or include Baruch or the Letter of Jeremiah. These were added much later. If you can graciously accept that the East’s canon is different, but should be accepted by Rome, you should be able to accept that Protestant canon is different which hold the Apocrypha is not Scripture, but is useful and good reading for Christians, is also. acceptable to Rome. You already violate the council of Trent for the former, might as well for the later.

[@reinhardfuchs5181]

If you read those books one can see that they are not inspired

[@menoftheclothKTOG]

That makes you, not the church, the infallible interpreter of the canon. Not cool to make yourself the, not the spirit of God, he who leafs into all truth.

[@wms72]

I read the books and see they are inspired

[@raymondvasquez6967]

@@menoftheclothKTOG Luther 2.0.

[@reinhardfuchs5181]

do You realy believ in papacy ? in ephesians 4 are all servants of god but NO POPE !

[@narrowistheway77]

Luther included the Apocryphal books in his Bible. This is a Roman Catholic fairytale

[@raymondvasquez6967]

The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since. It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14-26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

[@raymondvasquez6967]

Martin Luther was not afraid to challenge the canon of Scripture. He relegated four New Testament books to an appendix, denying that they were divinely inspired. Though this alteration of the New Testament wasn’t adopted by the Protestant movements, his alteration of the Old Testament was, and by the end of the Reformation Protestantism had removed seven books (the deuterocanonicals) from the Old Testament canon. This means if Protestantism is true, God allowed the early Church to put seven books in the Bible that didn’t belong there. Why Protestants changed their canon The Protestants rejected the books for several reasons, two of which we will focus on here. The first was a “problematic” passage in 2 Maccabees, and the second was their desire to go “back to the sources”-ad fontes-which to them meant using the same books that the Jews had decided upon. 2 Maccabees included a laudatory reference to prayers for the dead, a practice that the Catholic Church had encouraged for assisting the souls in purgatory. Recall Luther’s protest of the sale of indulgences to remove the temporal punishment due for already forgiven sins-punishment that must be paid before a soul would be fit to enter heaven. Luther and the Reformers rejected purgatory, so all that was connected with it also had to go: indulgences, prayers for the dead, and the communion of saints (which includes those both living and asleep in Christ). The Reformers pointed out that these seven books were not included in the Jewish Hebrew Bible. For that reason, they argued, the books should not be accepted by Christians. Some Protestant apologists seek to bolster this claim by mentioning the theory that, around A.D. 90, a council of Jews at Jamnia explicitly rejected these books. (The consensus among modern scholars is that the Jews closed their canon closer to the end of the second century A.D.)

[@narrowistheway77]

@@raymondvasquez6967 actually not only did Luther not toss those books, they’re literally included in the Bible that he published. You might want to stop reciting the same old lies. Furthermore, Saint Jerome actually refused to recognize those 7 books, he never translated any of them because he didn’t consider them scripture. Jerome preceded Luther by around 1200 years. The councils you mentioned also classified those 7 books as Deuterocanonical, not primary Canonical, so get your facts straight on that. The first and only Roman Catholic council that affirmed them as primary canon was Trent, and that actually represented the Roman Catholic Church breaking with tradition, not upholding it

[@raymondvasquez6967]

@@narrowistheway77 Umm no. All the early Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even the Anglicans) claimed that Saint Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical books of the Bible that Catholics include. This is a bold claim because it sets Saint Jerome, a preeminent saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, against the Catholic Church. So is it true? Certainly, no one can deny that Saint Jerome may have had early reservations about the canonical books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1&2 Maccabees (and those portions of Daniel and Esther). However, by AD 382, we see a reversal in St Jerome’s sentiments. The reason for this is that in AD 382, Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome canonized these books as inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit. So then, after this date, Saint Jerome, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, submitted to the papal decree. The same is true of Blessed John Henry Newman who personally disagreed with a quick decree on papal infallibility, but certainly obeyed it as soon as it was issued. Here’s proof that Saint Jerome submitted to the decree of Rome of Pope St Damasus. The following quote is taken from a letter written by Saint Jerome in A.D. 404. Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’? - Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, VI:207) Here Saint Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2 (‘Burden not thyself above thy power’) as “Scripture”. In Saint Jerome’s prologue on the book of Judith, he recongizes that the First Council of Nicea (AD 325 - the council defended the Trinity and deity of Christ against Arians) recognized the book of Judith as “canonical”. Furthermore, Jerome in the year A.D. 402 defended the deuteroncanoical additions to the book of Daniel: What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]). I rest may case. It seems clear that Saint Jerome did at one time reject the deuterocanonicals, but by A.D. 402-404 he had become a defender of them. Saint Jerome was not a dissenter. If you come across a Protestant still making this old and worn out claim about Saint Jerome, please point him to these quotes from St Jerome.

[@narrowistheway77]

@@raymondvasquez6967 congratulations, you can copy and paste a bunch of nonsense. Meanwhile I can read Koine Greek and Latin and know exactly what the early Church records say. Furthermore I have zero links with Luther, Calvin, etcetera. My Church tradition is older than the Protestant reformation. Perhaps you should research Proto-Protestants, we are still here and trace our traditions back to the apostles themselves 😉👍🏼

[@reeferfranklin]

Pope Benedict XVI was so good, that is the perfect model for healing the schisms, the Catholic Church should not require more of any denomination rejoining the church than they already believed before the schism, and said denomination should not regard any dogma of Catholicism since the schism as heretical. You could apply that model to so many churches coming back into the fold.

[@MrMarcodarko]

Akin is a heretic so dunno why CA still goes with him. Very straange and telling. There are better Catholic Channels out there

[@connorericson]

Heretic how?

[@LoneCrusader]

How?

[@TheRockIsCooking]

You’re just gonna name call without an explanation?? You seem like someone people should listen to 😂😂

[@enderwiggen3638]

Says the one who heretically is against the church Christ formed and the bible it put together

[@lmaoyourekiddingme]

Ridiculous. Defend your claim.

[@Craftmakerron]

Roman Catholic Church always elevated popes