Yes.... "...but as obedient children, be yourselves holy in all your activity, after the model of the Holy One who calls us, since scripture days, 'Be holy, for I am holy.' 1 Peter 1:16
I read the book of Enoch recently and wondered why it was not included in the Canon. I wonder if there are any writings about why some books were excluded and others not. Of course I am no scholar or theologian but after reading it I could not think of any conflict in it. I found it to be worth reading.
Victory , the question seems to be about the authority and legitimacy of the Pope, and whether the Holy Fathers possessed the authority to determine which writings were to be included in Holy Canon. Faithful Catholics believe the following: DID JESUS REALLY MAKE PETER POPE?Fr. William Saunders A Protestant friend of mine and I recently had a debate over whether Jesus actually made St. Peter the first pope. Although I cited Matthew 16, my friend had some other interpretation of it. What is a good answer to this question?—A reader. In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is indeed found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here, Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?" St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father." Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people. The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made. On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some anti-papal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immovable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church." "The gates of hell" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest war-making power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing—the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell. Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven. Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community. Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of "first among equals." St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69). When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). St. Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15). At the end of his life, St. Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down. As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to St. Peter did not end with his life but was handed on to his successors. The earliest writings attest to this belief. St. Irenaeus in his <Adversus Haereses> described how the Church at Rome was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul and traced the handing on of the office of St. Peter through Linus, Cletus (also called Anacletus), and so on, through 12 successors to his own present day, Pope Eleutherius. Tertullian in <De Praescriptione Haereticorum> asserted the same point as did Origen in his <Commentaries on John>, St. Cyprian of Carthage in his <The Unity of the Catholic Church> and many others. Granted, the expression of papal authority becomes magnified after the legalization of Christianity and especially after the fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing political chaos. Nevertheless, our Church boasts of an unbroken line of legitimate successors of St. Peter who stand in the stead of Christ We must always remember that one of the official titles of the pope, first taken by Pope Gregory the Great is "Servant of the Servants of God." As we think of this answer, may we be mindful of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and pray for his intentions. Fr. Saunders is president of the Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria. This article appeared in the October 20, 1994 issue of "The Arlington Catholic Herald." Courtesy of the "Arlington Catholic Herald" diocesan newspaper of the Arlington (VA) diocese. For subscription information, call 1-800-377-0511 or write 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 607 Arlington, VA 22203. Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210 www.ewtn.com HOME - EWTNews -FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO - LIBRARY - GALLERY - CATALOGUE -WHAT'S NEW MULTIMEDIA - GENERAL ESPAÑOL
That was my question too when I began on the quest for knowledge. I Book of Enoch I found to be very accurate, and some people I know have said Book 2 and 3 as well. I have been so busy with the Book of Revelation and of course home life, I have yet to read them. The bible is my foundational source and tends to give credence to all the True Apocryphal books. The Revelation and much of the Words of Christ, you can hear echoing in Enoch's words. He did after all see the Ancient of ancients, The Word. I would say people should approach the Apocryphal books with the intention of just wanting to know what those in high places know. God Bless!
The books which Protestants term,"Apocryphal " ARE included in the Catholic Bible, Victory, but Enoch is not among them, because the Holy Ghost did not lead the Church Fathers to include it. The suggestion that those "in high places" are keeping things from us carries with it a disturbing echo of Satan's innuendo to Eve in the Garden, that God was doing that very same thing.
Of course, I apply all the apostles teachings , also :James2:17-19Faith and Works …17So too, faith by itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that, and shudder!… I am saying you can know Christ deeply yourself, this is a time of knowledge. I do not discredit anyone whose works confirm their holiness. But always, this is because of obedience and God does the work in you. Sometimes hierarchy only have themselves in mind. That is all I am saying. There is much to learn out there. stay with the scriptures of course. And as Christ said: ' Do as they say and not as they do, for they do not even follow their own words. " And I will add, as Christ has added to me, for the gospel is EVERLASTING Rev.14. Beware of what they teach, KNOW THE SCRIPTURES. If one teaches another word that is not of the WORD then reject him. John 14:6-7 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. The Father Revealed 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” The only thing a Shepherd should be doing, is pointing everyone toward . I am simply saying do not follow blindly. Measure their words and actions by Christ.
Well, that is your opinion. And this is the mother of God forums. She has given many warnings concerning hierarchy. Take them or leave them. Say what you want they have labeled Enoch Apocryphal. And yes the Catholic and Orthodox have 73 books, the Protestant 66, The Ethiopian 81. The Ethiopian bible contains the complete writings of Enoch. Why RCC exclude his writings, only God knows. But since you have said you do not know about the writings of Enoch you are NOT qualified to make any determinations. First read then expound upon. I am not too indoctrinated to venture. Martin Luther excluded 7 books and later The book of Esther and Daniel. Are any of these people right for excluding these books? Well, you may blindly follow, I on the other hand have my own mind designed by God, I will always investigate. I always run into people like you who , when they do not agree begin to sling mud and call me names. You have just called me a devil for being a free thinker. REALLY! The Book of Enoch was read by doctrinal father's of the church. That is how they excluded it. At least they have read his works and formulated an opinion right or wrong. You have not, and formulated an opinion then preceded to call me a devil. Curious?
I am interested in this, as I have seen several YouTube videos discuss the book of Enoch. I’m under the impression that there is a passage of the book quoted in one of the epistles? If so that would seem to be evidence that at least at the time the faithful considered it scripture. From the little I’ve gathered about the book (I haven’t actually read it, only seen commentary on it) it would actually answer many mysteries about the beginnings of the ancient world that we sometimes scratch heads over
My goodness, Victory, I didn't :call: you anything - I just pointed out that your insinuations against the Magisterium sound a lot like those of Satan when he tempted Eve. I never said that I am ignorant of the Book of Enoch,either - I merely pointed out that the Holy Spirit did not see fit to inspire the Church Fathers to include it in the Bible. If the Ethiopian Bible includes it, that's their affair. This is a Catholic group, and we are faithful to the Magisterium here, mostly. Now, if you want to discuss the actual Book of Enoch, let's dive in, but please stop slinging mud at the Church hierarchy.
I like intelligent people. You can always recognize them they are always searching, testing and discovering the eternal knowledge of God. Even if you find fault with something you respond out of knowledge of it and not ignorance. All Glory to Christ!
And I am simply saying, it is a worthwhile read. It is not Deuterocanonical it is Apocryphal and yes the Apocrypha of St James is called as such and it is by the RCC that it is, that is why I posted where I got my information. And yes you did say you know nothing of Enoch. And yes, you said my words sound like the whispering of the serpent to Eve. Just saying. I have one Father Woes to Scribes and Pharisees …8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.… That is where I am at in my faith. Why would I, a child of God seek to call on men who know less than I, who have been given instruction to know the God Head. You may still need them , you speak of Magisterium like one ought to speak about Christ. I call the apostles the father's of the faith and in the sense one uses father- in that the first to teach of Christ. This, as to how Paul accepted being called a spiritual father. I know for sure many of the men of magesterium have not followed the Word completely and are then fallible. Like certain Popes .
The Roman Catholic Canon was established when in the 300s, there were three separate synods in different locations to decide on a canon of books. All three chose, without input from the other synods, the same 27 books of the New Testament. This list was formalized at the Council of Rome in 382 AD during the time of Pope Damasus. At this time, Pope Damasus also included the Septuagint Jewish Canon (the Old Testament), as that was the canon in use by the Jews in exile outside of Israel. It was also included because when the Apostles wrote in Greek and quoted Jesus quoting the Prophets, they always had him using the Septuagint Greek translations, not the Masoretic Greek translations used in the Temple. I have no idea how the Ethiopians decided on their canon. Enoch cited twice in the New Testament, in Hebrews 11:5 in talking about Enoch's faith, and in Jude 1:14-15, where he is quoted as authoritative. (This is one of the reasons Sola Scripta is false: if Jude is considered authoritative, then by citing Enoch in this manner, Enoch must also be authoritative. You cannot have a non-canonical book be authoritative and still believe in Sola Scripta.) The writings attributed to Enoch were dropped from the Jewish canon for a number of reasons, primary being that they contained false information (for example, the year is defined as being exactly 364 days long). The character of the Archangel Uriel is shown giving knowledge to men; however, it's done in such a way as can only be described as magical incantations. For this reason, pagan magicians frequently call on Uriel for protection when casting spells. Enoch, himself, is noted as someone of great faith and so, like Ezekiel, was taken up to Heaven without first tasting death. Some theologians believe the Two Witnesses in Revelation will be Enoch and Ezekiel.
I often wondered that as I perused this place. The figures do not seem to add up methinks. Not a mathematician of course, but do the numbers I warrant. Stand up and be true..............
Were there forty million babies being aborted annually in Ancient Rome or throughout the world at that time? I think not. And don't bother telling me that's because the population was lower unless you believe that abortion is a single sin no matter how many babies are killed. Each abortion is a sin and the fact is that abortion alone accounts for 40 million murders every year. People are still selling their children into prostitution and in very many cases into slavery in the form of child marriages. Those child marriages are legal in some heavily populated countries and even where it's illegal the authorities turn a blind eye to it. So-called "honour killing" of adult children is an example of people murdering their adult children, also ignored by authorities whether legal or not. Has the Born Alive legislation been enacted in the US - the one that Obama refused to support? If not, it is legal to kill newborn babies there because that's the inevitable result of leaving an abortion survivor to fend for his/herself without care or nourishment. Added to that, you have countless mothers assenting to having "doctors" suck out the brains of the babies in their wombs and/or dismember them to ensure that the babies' organs will be saleable for use in experiments. A human life is no less human whether it be inside or outside the womb. It's an empty boast, therefore, to claim superiority over the ancient Romans because we can murder disabled babies in the womb simply because medical science can detect the disability prior to birth. Then there's euthanasia legal across Europe - in at least one country at the age of 12 if the child has a disability. This in countries where, unlike in Ancient Rome, the Gospel message had been preached and accepted, and where people carrying out these atrocities often claim to be believers in the Gospel and doing acts of mercy. I won't bother to go into Bishops calling evil good and good evil from sodomy to adultery to contraception, or the Pope stabbing the pro-life movement in the back with his praise of the bicycle pump abortionist and awarding that Dutch death cult politician with a papal honour. We have, indeed, lost the sense of sin, both in the secular world and, tragically, in Christ's Church. This won't end well. Rather than taking a blase approach to it, I suggest you take a look at the punishments meted out to God's first chosen when they disregarded his Commandments. How much worse will it be for us who have heard the Gospel and rejected the message of Jesus who told us that if we love Him we will keep His Commandments. When he said that he didn't add "you can forget about the 5th, 6th and 8th".
Total 54, menbers 14 ,,Coward as you hide. I have done that.................Coward in the face of adversary, coward.
You are correct to a degree, It was not dropped by ancient Hebrews . It was a study of ancient Hebrews prior to Christ coming and after. I Book of Enoch is very sound. That is what I have read and have not found any contradiction to scripture. I hear a lot of words of Christ. I said we must know our bible before venturing. And the point of what I originally posted was about Heli and Joachim meaning the same thing. Everyone knows of Mary's father by the name Joachim I was simply pointing out Luke's gospel. With that said, I suggested reading the Deuterocanonical books which are called Apocrypha and Enoch is called Apocrypha too. I thought it was an interesting theological discussion. I did not realize some would be offended but for the most part those who have commented have been quite gracious even if they are not accepting or not sure. Thank you for not suggesting I am a serpent.
Defending the Book of Enoch BY TORAH DRIVEN LIFE The following are actual objections to the Book of Enoch, along with responses. Objection: “To the Biblically ignorant reader, the Book of Enoch might have an appeal; but to a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy.” Response: Many have claimed the Book of Enoch to be “full of heresy,” but few offer any factual evidence to support this claim. The fact is that the Book of Enoch was hidden away from the Roman church for centuries. The result of this is that there is much in the Book of Enoch that did not directly influence the doctrines that make up the beliefs of the modern church. As such, it is not the Scriptures themselves that the Book of Enoch is “contradicting,” but the beliefs of the modern church that were formed over the span of time that the Book of Enoch was absent from the libraries of church literature. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “If the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren’t… In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.” Response: Contrary to popular belief, the Book of Enoch is referenced in the New Testament at least 40 times. Several of these are even direct quotations, though not specifically attributed to Enoch. One of these instances, Jude 1:14-15, is a direct quotation, attributed specifically to Enoch himself. Several “New Testament” concepts are found to have their source in the Book of Enoch: the springs of living waters, (John 4:13-14 / Enoch 48:1) the new heaven and new earth, (Revelation 21:1 / Enoch 91:16-17) and several of the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5, Luke 6 / Enoch 5:7, Enoch 94:8) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “The Book of Enoch uses unfamiliar terminology, referring to the ‘Lord of Spirits’ and the ‘Head of Days.’ These terms are foreign to the Word of God.” Response: An avid scholar would understand that the Book of Enoch has gone through several linguistic filters that are foreign to the Hebrew Scriptures. Terms like “Lord of Spirits” and “Head of Days” are found in the Word of God, but in different forms; “Lord of Spirits,” for instance, is translated from the Hebrew as “the Lord of Hosts;” “Head of Days” is likewise found in the Bible translated as “Ancient of Days.” – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “The Messiah is not directly mentioned… It is worthy to note that Christ’s deity is not evidenced in the Book of Enoch.” Response: This objection is not remotely true; in fact, huge portions of the text are directed toward exalting the character and personage of the Messiah. The following Messianic titles are referenced in the Book of Enoch: Elect One (Enoch 39:6, 40:6, 45:3-5, 49:2-4, 51:1-3, 52:6-9, 53:6, 55:4, 56:6, 61:5, 61:8-11, 62:1) Son of Man (Enoch 46:2-4, 48:2, 60:10, 62:5-9, 62:14, 63:11, 69:26-30, 70:1, 71:14-16) Anointed / Messiah (Enoch 48:10, 52:4) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “Many terms from the Biblical Book of Revelation are quoted in the Book of Enoch…” Response: The Book of Revelation was written about 90 A.D. The best of Biblical scholars date the Book of Enoch to the second century B.C.. Even the portion of the book reckoned as being part of the very latest authorship is now considered to predate the New Testament. In the words of James H. Charlesworth in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, “…no specialists now argue that I Enoch 37-71 is a Christian and postdates the first century.” So, if anything, the Revelation of John is quoting from the Book of Enoch. I prefer to think that both the Revelation of John and the Book of Enoch are quoting from God. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “The King James translators, 48 scholarly men skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages, didn’t believe the work was inspired by God.” Response: The King James translators worked from 1604 through 1611. The Book of Enoch was considered “lost” from approximately through 1773, when it was rediscovered in several Ethiopian manuscripts. Hence, the King James translators did not even have access to any manuscripts of the Book of Enoch. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “The sons of God are the godly line who have come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain. What you have here now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines, until finally the entire line is totally corrupted (well, not totally; there is one exception). That is the picture that is presented to us here.” Response: The above thought process is an interpretation of Genesis 6:2 that is not based in reality. The passage states, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” In the above thought process, the “sons of God” are understood to be the descendants of Seth, whereas the “daughters of man” are considered the descendants of Cain, but there are a handful of reasons why this thought process is not accurate. First, the phrase “sons of God” is used elsewhere in Hebrew literature only when referring to angelic beings. Second, the action taking place in Genesis 6:2 was so grievous in God’s sight that it caused Him to say only a few passages later, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground… for I am sorry that I have made them.” Yet this destructive proclamation is on the back of God having commanded mankind to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28) It is inconceivable that God was so grieved by human reproduction that He saw fit to destroy the world. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “Jesus and the apostles never called it scripture.” Response: There is actually a very strong example of Yeshua referring to the Book of Enoch as Scripture. In Matthew 22:29-30, Yeshua first chided the Sadducees for their lack of understanding of “the Scriptures,” then proceeded to teach a concept that is only found in the Book of Enoch. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “A few early church fathers highly valued the book of Enoch but they never referred to it as scripture.” Response: This statement is simply incorrect. Church father Tertulian writes as follows in his 2nd century work, On the Apparel of Women I 3:1-3, “I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch…” Church father Origen appealed to the Book of Enoch as having the same canonical authority as he does the Book of Psalms in De Principiis IV. Irenaeus, in his work The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 18, records a condensed retelling of Enoch 6-8. Lastly, the author of the Letter of Barnabas (not the Barnabas mentioned in the book of Acts) quotes Enoch multiple times along side the canonical Scriptures. To say that the early church fathers unanimously did not regard Enoch as Scripture is a blatant misrepresentation of historical fact. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Objection: “One reason most Christian do not accept the Book of Enoch is that the Jewish teachers did not accept it as part of the Bible. It is not part of what Christians call the Old Testament.” Response: This is yet another baseless objection. Of the Jewish sects of the first century, the ideas of what exactly constituted the “canon” of Scriptures varied from group to group. The ancient Pharisees used a set of books that is very similar the books that make up what we call today the Tanakh, or Old Testament, plus perhaps the Book of Sirach. The Essenes, on the other hand, accepted in their sacred library at Qumran an entire collection of holy texts, among which were the books of Tobit, Jubilees, Sirach, and even Enoch. To suggest that the ancient Jews did not accept the Book of Enoch is erroneous; it is better said that while some ancient Jews did not accept the Book of Enoch, others, in fact, did.
Apples and oranges, Dolours - we were discussing your claim that this generation is the most wicked in history, not the number of individual sins being committed. As a rhetorical example, suppose there were two islands somewhere, one a small isle with a population of 5000 people, and the other much larger, with a population of 50000. Suppose that both islands are basically lawless, and on the small island, there are about 50 murders per year, whereas on the large island, there are an average of 150 murders per year. Would you say that the people on the large island are more evil than the people on the small one, simply because there have a greater number of murders there? As for your claim that people are still selling their children into slavery and prostitution and the fac tthan honor killing still exists, well, yes, those things still happen in less civilized places, but every civilized nation in the world is working to stop them, whereas Ancient Rome WAS the center of civilization in the ancient world, and slavery, prostitution, honor killing, and infanticide were protected by and in some cases demanded by law. Only in Red China has infanticide been more common; and with the exception of China, NO government in the world today requires that a woman get an abortion, or kill a child with a birth defect, as did ancient Rome. Yes - The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107-207, 116 Stat 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C,§ 8) is an Act of Congress.. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush. The fact that these things are legal is BAD, but in Rome, murdering disabled children was the LAW, and that's an abomination. And in ALL of these countries, throngs of Christian people are crying out daily against such abuses, whereas in Ancient Rome, these were ACCEPTED PRACTICES - yet another proof that this is NOT the mose evil generation in history. To say otherwise is to spit in the face of the multitudes of Christian people who speak out and sometimes risk their lives to witness against such things. Dolours, while you're looking at those Commandments, I suggest that you take a closer look at the eighth one, which says,""Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour". It is true Holy Father praised Emma Bonino - he gave guarded praise to her service to the Italian government in Africa, and when he did so, he was careful to condemn her for promoting anti-life values while she was down there. To claim otherwise, and to twist the facts to make it look as though Pope Francis was praising her character and her history as a proponent of abortion, is nothing but a vicious calumny, and calumny, according to the Catechism, is a sin against the eighth commandment: "2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."
