In [Chapter 2 of Holy Apostle St Paul's 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians, vv. 1-12], the RSVCE Title of which is **The Man of Lawlessness**, i.e., the **Antichrist**, St Paul in v.5 asks his audience to recall: > *5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?* It appears that the early Christians right from the **Apostolic Age** were taught about and were familiar with this **Antichrist** character. The Church teaches that the heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church from the Apostles, is contained in the the ***depositum fidei***, i.e., in Sacred Scripture and [Holy] Tradition. > **The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church** > > **[CCC 84]** The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the ***depositum fidei***), contained in Sacred Scripture and > Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] > the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful > to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking > of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and > professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a > remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." Chapter 13 in the Apostle St. John's Apocalypse introduces the Apocalyptic Beasts and their relationship . In the preceding Chapter 12 , the dragon had already been introduced, described, and the readers told what he does: > *the **great dragon** [...], that **ancient serpent**, who is called **the Devil and Satan**, **the deceiver of the whole world*** That leaves us with the two Beasts, the 7-headed First Beast from the Sea, and the Second Beast with with two horns from the earth. Which of these two Beasts, from the Catholic Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is identifiable with the **Antichrist**?

The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)

There are many versions of the Bible, such as the: - King James Bible - NIV - NRSV But which is the "correct" bible for Catholics to read?

One of my favorite Bible translations has always been the King James (I suppose because of the medieval feel), but I have always been fascinated by the much longer history of the Catholic Church and I recently was informed that the KJV is not considered a valid translation in Catholic canon. This sparked curiosity on my part I was wondering in what ways the KJV was different from a traditional Catholic translation, and can the differences be chalked up to slightly different translations of ancient Greek? Or was it fundamentally changed to fit a Protestant perspective?

Regarding the Old Testament canon, Protestants follow the Jewish canon based on the assumption that this is the canon accepted by Jews before the coming of Christ. However, the historical evidence that the canon of the Hebrew Bible was decided before Christ is far from conclusive. There are some ancient claims (as can be found in Justin Martyr for example) that the Jews altered their OT in order to elide the parts that might look Christian, and I have heard some Catholics say that the deuterocanonical books were left out of the Jewish canon for the same reason. I guess I'm a little skeptical that this makes sense. **Is there anything in any of the deuterocanonical books that would be objectionable to Jews?** To be clear, I am asking specifically about the *contents* of the books. The well-established fact of their late authorship (relative to the protocanon) and the fact that many of them were not composed in Hebrew were probably also factors influencing the Jews' decision not to canonize the Apocrypha. However, I am wondering whether there are additional reasons related to what the books actually say. I don't need an example from each of the deuterocanonical books, I would be satisfied by just one or two examples of statements from them which Jews would disagree with but not Christians would not.

Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the Books of Macabees isn't part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So i'm wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today(which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what i'm asking of any books in the catholic bible that precede the canonisation of the hebrew bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today?

For example, if no Mass were celebrated worldwide this Sunday, what would happen? Is there any teaching in Catholicism about this? It doesn't necessarily have to be on a Sunday; it could be on a Friday, for instance. Thank you, I hope you can help me. Hail Mary!

On p. 230 of Fr. F. W. Faber's [*The Precious Blood*](https://ia802601.us.archive.org/21/items/a5807812fabe00uoft/a5807812fabe00uoft.pdf) , we find the words: >In the days of Antichrist, when two-thirds even of the faithful shall fall away from the Church. Now, "a revolt" is spoken about in [2 Thess. 2:3](https://www.drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm) , which, I surmise, is what Fr. Faber is referring to. Can someone shed some light as to where the "two-thirds" figure may have come from? Can it be biblically inferred?

How do Catholics defend the apparent errors found in the deuterocanonical books? [Errors in the Apocrypha](https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/errors-in-the-apocrypha/)

I am a Catholic and I would like to know if the Book of Revelation in the Catholic Bible (or in other Christian Bibles) has anything to say about whether human souls will be fighting during Armageddon. For example, are there any passage(s) in the Book of Revelation that indicate that the human souls that went to Heaven will be fighting alongside God's angels against the demons and the human souls that went to Hell? Does the Book of Revelation indicate whether human souls will be fighting during Armageddon?

What does the Catholic Church believe about prophesy in the Book of Revelation? Does that mention the Second Coming of Christ? Can you give me a brief overview of the subject in Roman Catholic belief?

The following is taken from the body of a recently asked question asking how many in the New Testament are called or actually claim to be the brother or sister of Jesus Christ. It is not scoped for Catholic answers only but it is asked by a Catholic and from a Catholic perspective: > Regardless of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary acknowledged as dogma by most Christians, which would necessitate a different interpretation of the words "brother" and "sister" It appears by this statement as though Roman Catholics, **by necessity**, assign interpretations to words in Scripture based upon Dogmatic statements made from Rome rather than their plain biblical usage. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was dogmatized in 553 in Constantinople but it had been talked about within the church since it's possible earliest witness in the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 150). The Assumption of Mary, however, wasn't dogmatized until 1950 and, arguably has no biblical attestation. I don't know if there are any specific words in Scripture whose meanings, by necessity, must be interpreted differently due to accepting the dogma of Mary's Assumption but theoretically it is possible. Do Roman Catholics, by necessity, assign meanings to words in the Bible based upon dogmatic statements made hundreds and even thousands of years after the Apostles were finished writing Scripture? Is this really how Roman Catholics interpret Scripture?

Our Lord is often referred to as *Jesus* by the writers of the Gospels; however, I cannot think of an instance where He is referred to, or called, *Jesus* by any of His enemies (or strangers). Can anyone point me to an instance (in a Catholic Bible) where our Lord is called *Jesus* by one of His enemies or a stranger? It seems that "Sir", or "Rabbi", or perhaps, "Master" are the more likely salutations.

I am considering becoming an Orthodox Christian but what is really stagnating me from joining the Orthodox Church is their canon: Orthodox Christians have a much larger canon than both Protestants and Roman Catholics (i.e. 3 Maccabees). Does the Orthodox Church have the right canon and did any Christians hold to the same canon of the Orthodox Christians?

The Catholic Church believes Peter to be the leader of the apostles. Also, by the time that [Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Vulgate) with the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (AD 382), the papacy was already firmly established. Why then St. Jerome placed the letters of St. Peter *after* James's letter among the catholic epistles (implying that James's letter is more important Peter's letters), not to mention placing the whole group of Paul's letters before the catholic epistles? Please note that I'm not making the assumption that order automatically implies importance (whether of the subject matter or of the author). For example, the reason why Matthew came before John was that the early church (including St. Augustine) [believed that the canonical order follows the order in which the 4 gospels were written](https://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/why-matthew-is-first-gospel-and-not.html) . Did the same reason apply to the ordering of the catholic epistles? **My question**: In the (presumed) absence of other deliberate ordering reason, why is it that James's letter was placed before Peter's letters among the catholic epistles?

I'm trying to track down a Catholic bible translation. I saw a screenshot of it online (a picture of a physical copy) a few months ago but have yet to identify which translation it is. The key thing that was highlighted in the meme pic was that the translators had inserted "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic" into Christs words in chapter 16, such that Christ ends up saying "on this rock I will build my one, holy, catholic, apostolic church." I'm super curious to track down this translation because I find it somewhat humourous but I also think there could be some actual value in it, on a sociological level at least. **Does anyone know which translation this could be?** I suspect it's one of the following but can't find online copies to confirm: - St. Paul Catholic Edition - Alba House New Testament - New Community Bible: Catholic Edition (NCB) - New Living Translation Catholic Edition (NLT-CE)

When reading on Biblical Prophecies, a big one is Genesis 3:15. The Douay-Rheims translation says > "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." When it says "She shall crush thy head..." is it refering to Mary, Jesus, or the both of them doing so? Growing up as a Methodist, the Bible has always said "He shall..." and not "She shall..". Why is it translated the way it is?

**Does the Catholic Church have any teaching on cannibalism?** I wasn't able to find much about it.

Is there a Hebrew translation for the Deuterocanonical books (including 1,2 Maccabees)? Any available online?

I am wondering what are the differences between the King James Version and New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition bible (this is almost the other question about NKJV and KJV Bible ) From the articles I can see that: - NRSV-CE has more books included. - Time written - Language type More than this I could not get from the articles. What other **prominent** differences are there (in the remaining books) concerning the story? Thus in short, if you have read both, what were the differences (if any) that **stood out**?