Question about Catholic Bible

Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible? Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?” That’s what they told me. The books that were not included were not “God-breathed.”
I guess that is what I am wondering. The person who told me this had other ideas that seemed to go against Christ’s teachings. I was pretty much laughed out of that church. And forced out by nasty gossip and slander.
And is it okay if a Protestant chooses the Catholic Bible over the Protestant one? A lot of people I know wouldn’t like it if I started reading the Catholic Bible. But I want to know for myself what is true.:shrug:

Some Protestant churches use the same bible and some individuals do too…

When the bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea the seven books (Apocrypha) were included. They were also assumed to be inspired by God. Then came Martin Luther. He decided that they were not inspired by God (I guess Luther’s opinion was infallible). He gave some reasons which as I recall were inaccurate. He also tried to remove several books from the New Testament (including James and Revelation). Some of the NT books put an emphasis on works which were opposed to Luther’s beliefs.

My knowledge on this issue is of course incomplete. Some others will probably do a better job. Also it would be fair to hear someone from the Protestant side as they probably have an excellent argument.

Wow. So it was Luther who changed it? My mom says he saved Christianity when he created the Protestant churches.
It’s crazy how she sticks to the Protestant beliefs. She told me she felt I had an interest in Catholicism because I wanted to believe in purgatory. She said, If I believed in purgatory, I wouldn’t have to worry that I was doing things that would get me sent to Hell. Because at least then I had a chance at Purgatory.
Not true. I just realize there were beliefs in my former church that were questionable. So I need to discover what is right.

Perhaps you could ask your Protestant theologian friends and such why the Reformers took those books of the Bible out of the Bible when they had been in there ever since the canon of the Bible was determined?

Your mother also has no understanding of purgatory. Purgatory IS NOT a second chance, let me repeat purgatory IS NOT a second chance. What purgatory IS is where you are cleansed of sins that you did not make adequate penance for. So in layman terms it is like taking a shower and becoming pure before you enter into the all powerful and holy presence of God.

And there are those Protestants that believe that the Catholic Church “ADDED” to the Bible. One would think that after 500 years we’d be over this by now… I’m a big believer in “more is better” when it comes to scripture. I know I’m biased, but that’s how I see it. Good luck to you in your quest for understanding.

QUOTE=Rhuarc;9247037]Your mother also has no understanding of purgatory. Purgatory IS NOT a second chance, let me repeat purgatory IS NOT a second chance. What purgatory IS where you are cleansed of sins that you did not make adequate penance for. So in layman terms it is like taking a shower and becoming pure before you enter into the all powerful and holy presence of God.

Fantastic explanation. :thumbsup:

Fantastic explanation. :thumbsup:

Be good to your mother (Jesus commands it). It appears to me that she was very devoutly following those beliefs which she was taught. And I’m sure she was acting out of love and for your best.

I would be curious to know where you received this information, because it’s simply not true. Luther certainly included these books in his translation of the Bible.

I would also be curious to also know what you mean by “tried to remove” books and your understanding of the historical facts surrounding this attempt.

I would also be curious as to your evidence that that the Council of Nicaea “compiled the Bible.”

Yes. I have heard that too. I suppose it is easier to say that the Catholic church added them that it is to say that some Protestants removed something from scripture.

I was in my wife’s Lutheran church Sunday and the pastor said it all.

I did say my information was incomplete. And also that we needed a Protestant interpretation.

I grew up Protestant, and was taught that those “extra books” were added by the Catholic Church in the 1500’s. So that’s why I said it: because that’s the tradition in which I was raised.

When I finally got around to studying history for myself I found out that the canon that the Catholic Church defined in the 1500’s had actually been universally accepted by Christians since the 4th Century, that the reason it was defined in the 1500’s was because the Reformer’s caused a controversy about it, and that (as I recall) Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical books supposedly on the grounds that the Jews of the late 1st Century (who rejected Christ and the NT writings) rejected them as well. The fact that those books didn’t fit with his distorted theology was a big part of it as well; to be fair he did admit that they were valuable reference materials, but he rejected the idea that they are Sacred Scripture…

I’m sorry that you were treated that way.

Of course! It’s always better to have the entire bible, rather than one that’s been cut up.

If that’s true, then your wife’s pastor was sadly mistaken. (The assertion and language sounds much more like what people post here at CAF, to be honest–except for the part about the Bible being compiled at the Council of Nicaea, that’s from The DaVinci Code.)

To my mind, there’s a difference between presenting incomplete information and perpetuating inaccurate information—particularly when answering someone who is simply asking and question and looking for information and not, say, debating a topic.

That’s not correct. The canon you are referring to was accepted in the Latinate church only, not universally. The other ancient churches developed their own biblical canons which vary with the Latinate canon as well as with each other.

I would be curious where you found this in your research, because it’s not correct. Luther’s theology of the Bible has nothing to do with what was or was not accepted by the Jews.

That’s not correct; Luther includes them as Scripture.

Now here’s information that hasn’t been corrected a hundred times on this forum before! :wink:

Yes, the Catholic Church did add books to the Bible, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. 27 books to be exact, it is now commonly referred to as the “New Testament”.

So to find out for yourself what is true! Gonna take some work though but the truth is worth it.

  1. The seven books of the Bible are properly called the deuterocanonical books, not apocrypha. They apocrypha are books that are definitely not inspired, and Christians all agree are not inspired (example: fake gospel accounts that were clearly written well after the death of the apostles).
    More info here:

  2. Purgatory is not a second chance… the people in purgatory are people who have already had their particular judgment and are destined for heaven! Purgatory is a place for the soul to be cleansed, healed and purified before it can enter into heaven. Purgatory is not a place for souls destined for hell to “try again”… if a soul is destined for hell, they go straight there and have no chance of changing; they’ve chosen to be away from God.

more is better…it’s ALL GOOD. It doesn’t bother me. It’s your faith, not something you should reason in your mind which is better.

in the verse you refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 St Paul is writing to Timothy. Paul knew the Hebrew scripture backwards and forwards, inside and out. His reference was to what we’d call the Hebrew “bible” now the OT anyway.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit