What is the Catholic understanding of the Deuterocanonical books?

Doubt courtesy of Giant Flying Turtle For Fireball: Catholics, what is your understanding of the Deuterocanonical books?

Deuterocanonical means “second canon” as opposed to protocanonical, or “first canon.”

In what sense are the deuterocanonical texts a “second canon”? How are they treated differently, if at all?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response.

That is certainly facts to consider about Catholics, what is your understanding of the Deuterocanonical books? that you may have to have fix situations automatically. Eventually it will help in many ways; and produce yourself greater. Thinking facts to consider about Catholics, what is your understanding of the Deuterocanonical books? tend to be a treatment when you need it.

Most practical answer:

Answer by Messenger of God

The Deuterocanonical Books can not be used on there own, they are used to support the Canonical Books. For example your quoting something from the Gospel of St. Matthew along with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, you could refer also to the Book of Tobit which supports the teaching of the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. But you can’t use the Book of Tobit along with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church because by itself it’s not Canonical.

Answer by Rene O

The apocryphal books were not part of Jewish scripture, and are not part of the Protestant Bible. The Jewish scribes discarded the apocrypha as scripture largely because of the sundry historical and chronological errors within. As God is not the author of error, He is obviously not the author of the apocrypha. The same issues that prevented the induction of the apocrypha into Jewish scripture almost resulted in St. Jerome’s refusal to translate them into the Vulgate. He objected to their inclusion in scripture, but was overruled by the Council at Nicea. These same issues are the reason that these books were excluded from Protestant Bibles during the Reformation. While Catholics rely on tradition in addition to the Bible, the Protestant reliance on the Bible alone (a belief the Catholic Church refers to as sola scriptura) resulted in tighter constraints on what could be considered divinely-inspired. That has not stopped Rome from attempting to find non-apocryphal biblical supports, though.

Answer by Mediator

I do hope you appreciate a thoughtful response because I’ve often wondered in today’s endless debates about the written tradition of the Catholic Church — the Bible — whether people realize Jesus Christ appeared on this earth exactly as the Hebrew world was debating its own canon, what to include, what language and on and on. And Jesus told them the Kingdom of God was in the here and now, right in front of them (speaking to Septuigent-based Pharisees at that time I believe). He told them it was One Body, no longer just Jews. They didn’t have to shun those Hellenistic crossbreeding Samaritans anymore! Speaking Greek, the word out of his mouth would have been “katholicos,” or “concerning the whole.” The Samaritans of the northern kingdom, the Sadducees of the rich folks, the Zealot terrorists, the sectarian Essenes — all of these argued about whether to include more than the five books of Moses and why they should. So here we are 2,000 years later. And we’re still discussing this? The Catholic Church settled this once and for all in the 15th Century. Link below. Read it. All of it. You can’t pick and choose from it, you have to take it all together in context. Which requires more work than many people will want to perform.

The culmination of Scripture as shared in the widely used Septuigent or the Hebrew TNK was and is Jesus Christ. He fulfills all of it. None of it is unfulfilled or yet to come. And he fulfills the Revelation of John. None of that is yet to happen, it is occurring now outside of our experience. Timeless and eternal.

Jesus Christ we know is eternal. He does not exist in a field of human time as we do. His miracle of crucifixion, the death and resurrection, is timeless. It is happening right here and right now in the New Covenant he made the night he created the Catholic Church. At the table, he celebrated the feast of Melchizedek, the feast of Passover, all of it and rendered it new and timeless in a new sacrament called Eucharist. It is the bread given for the life of the world. You don’t have to be able to read to eat of it. But you do have to listen and obey. That’s pretty much all there is to it.

The study and use of Scripture is good for the soul. A technology occurred about 600 years ago that made it possible to personally own written literature, and when people get things in their little hot hands, they sometimes believe they truly do own it, even if it is the Word of God given to them by the grace of God through the Catholic Church, which produced ALL the Bibles for well over a thousand years. But debating the worth, the value, is not good for the soul.

The official canon of the Hebrews wasn’t settled until AFTER the Catholic Church had a New Testament. The oldest existing copy we have of a Hebrew Bible is from the 10th Century, though thankfully the Dead Sea Scrolls gives us an Essene scroll of Isaiah and lots of other great stuff. The Catholic Church was built upon the Torah AND the writings of the prophets AND other writings. Nothing is secondary, and all of it is prelude to Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice that, we view, will save the world.

.

Do know much better?

Add your individual answer within the comments!

El Canon (cuyo nombre completo es Canon y Giga en Re mayor para tres violines y bajo continuo, en el original alemán: Kanon und Gigue in D-Dur für drei Violi…

What is the Catholic understanding of the Deuterocanonical books?