Can I have a Mass said for the repose of the soul of a Protestant?

Can I have a Mass said for the repose of the soul of a Protestant? What happens to my prayers if he's in heaven or hell already?

Full Question

Can I have a Mass said for the repose of the soul of my Protestant friend? And what happens to my prayers if he's in heaven already or, God forbid, hell?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

You can, and should, have a Mass said for your Protestant friend, or anyone for that matter.

If the one we are praying for is in heaven, he is not in need of our prayers. If he is in hell, no prayer can benefit him. But because the Church does not presume to know if any particular soul is damned, we are not to judge but to pray. The rest is up to God. Only God judges the heart (cf. 1 Sm 16:7).

Can absolution be withheld from a murderer until he agrees to give himself up to authorities?

Can absolution be withheld from a murderer until he agrees to give himself up to authorities?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Absolutely not. A priest may withhold absolution from a murderer if he has reason to believe that the penitent is insincere. He also may assign the penitent to atone for his sin by helping those he has harmed, anonymously if necessary. For example, if the victim was a husband and father, the priest may direct the penitent to contribute to the support of the widow and children. In order to avoid revealing the murderer’s identity, the support may be given through the mediation of the parish’s charitable funds. The priest also may encourage the penitent to turn himself in to authorities. But he may not condition absolution upon the murderer’s confession to civil authorities. No one—not even the priest—can require an action that would reveal to outsiders the contents of his sacramental confession and thus violate the seal of the confessional.

Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?

Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian.

What is the Church's view on organ transplants?

What is the Church's view on organ transplants?

Full Question

What is the Church's view on organ transplants? I feel that they are wrong. If God calls someone, who are we to stop the death process?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

By that logic, any life-preserving medication or intervention would be wrong. Removing an inflamed appendix or administering CPR are just as much intervening in a process that would lead to death as transplanting a heart. Even yanking someone out of the path of an oncoming bus could be interpreted as saving someone who was being called by God.

Not only does the Church accept the transplanting of human organs, it recognizes the donation of organs and blood to those in need as acts of charity and therefore commendable. Needless to say, such donations must not in the slightest way cause the death of the donor.

What should I say to a priest who refers to God as "he or she"?

What should I say to a priest who refers to God as "he or she"?

Full Question

The priest who teaches our RCIA class refers to God as "he or she" and expresses open-mindedness about women priests. What can I say to him?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition never refer to any person of the Godhead as she or he or she. The word he is always used. This same usage is invariably followed by the Church’s magisterium and in the liturgy and is stipulated in the Church’s translational norms as well.

Jesus began the only prayer he taught us with "Our Father." A father is a he. Jesus himself is obviously male, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him with a non-masculine pronoun. And Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as he: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (Jn 14:26).

While the Bible does sometimes use feminine and maternal metaphors for God and especially for divine wisdom—which in some passages seems to be represented as a divine person and has sometimes been theologically identified with God the Son—nevertheless Scripture and the Church’s liturgical tradition agree that God is to be called he, not she. Bottom line: There is no place in historic Christian expression for "inclusive" God language.

Regarding the all-male priesthood, the Holy Father could not have been clearer on this issue. In his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he said,

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. (4,2, emphasis added)

What's the significance of the crossing of the forehead, lips, and heart before the Gospel reading?

What's the significance of the crossing of the forehead, lips, and heart before the Gospel reading?

Full Question

Just before the Gospel reading, the celebrant leads us in the gesture with our thumbs making the sign of the cross on our foreheads, lips and hearts. Who created this and why?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

As early as the ninth century, the faithful were making the sign of the cross on their forehead and breast at the reading of the Gospel. Then, in the 11th century, we find the deacon and the faithful making the sign of the cross on the forehead, mouth, and breast after the words "A reading of the holy gospel . . ." (Jungmann, Mass of the Roman Rite).

According to Jungmann,

The original idea of this signing of oneself is probably indicated in the scriptural text frequently cited in this connection, the quotation about the wicked enemy who is anxious to take the seed of the word of God away from the hearts of hearers (Mark 4:15). . . . But another explanation takes over by degrees; an ever-increasing stress is placed on the readiness to acknowledge God’s word with courage. . . . The meaning is this: For the word which Christ brought and which is set down in this book we are willing to stand up with a mind that is open, we are ready to confess it with our mouth, and above all we are determined to safeguard it faithfully in our hearts. (CIN-Origin of the Sign of the Cross, Father Mateo, July 28, 1991)

Was Mary of Cleophas the sister-in-law of the Virgin Mary?

Was Mary of Cleophas the sister-in-law of the Virgin Mary?

Full Question

In some old documents I found references to a woman named Mary of Cleophas, who was said to be the sister-in-law of the Virgin Mary. Is this speculation, or do we know something about this women?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

In John 19:25 we read, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary [the wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." The exact nature of the sisterhood between Jesus’ mother and Mary of Cleophas is unknown. It is possible that Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which would make the Marys sisters-in-law. Or perhaps they were sisters in the sense an extended family (e.g., cousins).

Is it wrong for me to sign divorce papers if I'm in favor of saving the marriage?

Is it wrong for me to sign divorce papers if I'm in favor of saving the marriage?

Full Question

I am in the midst of a divorce I believe could be avoided with counseling, but my wife is moving toward the divorce with no second thoughts. Is it wrong for me to sign divorce papers? If I don't, she can still divorce me, but we would have to go through a trial, and that would ruin me financially.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Civil divorce has no effect on the indissolubility of a valid marriage. The Church permits civil divorce only for the equitable division of property that has been held in common. If not signing the divorce papers will not prevent the divorce, then refusing to do so might be only a waste of time and money. You are not obliged to incur financial ruin in order to avoid signing divorce papers.

How can the Nicene Creed expressions "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing?

How can the Nicene Creed expressions "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing?

Full Question

On your web site you suggest that the expressions from the Nicene Creed "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. How do you explain this?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

As stated at our site, "These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son" (www.catholic.com/library/filioque.asp).

The Trinity is our ultimate model in the self-donation John Paul II speaks of as necessary in personal relationships. Just as the Son receives all that he has from the Father, so the Father gives all that he has to the Son. That means that, although he is rooted in the Father, it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because the Son receives the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

"And the Son" and "through the Son" are slightly different ways of expressing the same reality: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Holy Spirit is rooted in the Father and directed by the Father through the Son.

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

If there is no salvation outside the Church, then what does Christ's death do for those who die without entering the Church?

If there is no salvation outside the Church, then what does Christ's death do for those who die without entering the Church?

Full Question

If there is no salvation outside the Church, then what relationship does Christ's sacrifice on the cross have with those who sincerely believe in a false religion and die having never entered the Church?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

Remember that Jesus said from the cross, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34). What did his sacrifice on the cross have to do with those who mocked him, spit at him, and crucified him? In other words, what did it have to do with those for whom he was asking forgiveness from God the Father? The answer is: everything. For some, it was through ignorance that they crucified him, and invincible ignorance can diminish one’s culpability for evil done—even the crucifixion of our Savior. They still could be saved, or Jesus’ plea for their forgiveness to the Father would make no sense. Whoever enters heaven will do so only because of Christ and his sacrificial work on the cross. Some people may enter heaven having never heard of Christ, but it will be because of him that they enter.

Are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion able to give blessings?

Are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion able to give blessings?

Full Question

In our parish, those who are not able to receive the Eucharist are invited to come up in the communion procession and receive a blessing. Since we have several extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, it is usually they who give the blessing. Is this correct?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

There are certain cases in which a lay person may give a blessing. The general introduction to the Book of Blessings states: "Other laymen and laywomen, in virtue of the universal priesthood, a dignity they possess because of their baptism and confirmation, may celebrate certain blessings, as indicated in the respective orders of blessings, by use of the rites and formularies designated for a lay minister" (18).

In the rubrics for the distribution of Holy Communion to the sick by extraordinary ministers, the minister may not bless the sick person but only may make the sign of the cross over himself and ask for a blessing upon both of them.

Based on these statements, the practice of extraordinary ministers giving blessings during Holy Communion does not appear to be in keeping with Church law.

Is it true that 10 days were lost to the world after Teresa of Avila died?

Is it true that ten days were lost to the world after Teresa of Avila died?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

In a manner of speaking, yes. Teresa of Avila, the reformer of the Carmelite order and cofounder with John of the Cross of the Discalced Carmelites, died on October 4, 1582. Due to the reform of the calendar by Pope Gregory XIII (r. 1572–1585), the 10 days counted from October 5 to October 14, 1582, were dropped. Thus, the day after Teresa died was not October 5 but October 15. October 15 is her feast day on the liturgical calendar.

While this bit of saintly trivia can be amusing to drop on unsuspecting fellow Catholics at the next coffee-and-doughnut social after Sunday Mass, rest assured that the "lost days" were not dropped from the calendar because of Teresa’s death. They simply happened to coincide with her death.

Can a massage therapist pray over her patients if it involves "moving energy fields"?

Can a massage therapist pray over her patients if it involves "moving energy fields"?

Full Question

My sister is a massage therapist who works with people whose bodies have been traumatized by car accidents or other serious injuries. In addition to massage, she says she prays over them and moves around their energy fields. Does the Church allow this kind of thing?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

It is fine, and even meritorious, for a massage therapist to pray for her patients. But she should be prudent if she wishes to do so in a way that is obvious to her patient, such as praying aloud. Asking the patient’s permission would seem appropriate. The claim that a person has an inner energy that must be manipulated for healing to occur is a New Age idea that must be rejected.

What can you tell me about Charles Parham, who was the founder of the Pentecostal church?

What can you tell me about Charles Parham, who was the founder of the Pentecostal church?

Full Question

I read a book which mentioned Charles Parham, who was the founder of the Pentecostal Church. What can you tell me about him?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

Since there are many Pentecostal churches, it's more accurate to say that Charles Parham is the founder of the Pentecostal movement.

Parham was born in Muscatine, Iowa in 1873. After feeling a call to preach as a young man, Parham involved himself in many of the religious movements of his day, including the Holiness and Divine Healing movements.

In 1898 Parham founded the Bethel Healing Home in Topeka, Kansas as a haven for those seeking divine healing. Shortly thereafter he toured the Holy Ghost and Us Bible School in Shiloh, Maine, where he heard of instances of glossolalia (speaking in tongues) among missionaries.

Parham became convinced the premillennial return of Christ would be preceded by a worldwide revival and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Glossolalia would be the sign of the Spirit's empowerment for this revival and for great missionary endeavors.

In 1900 Parham started a Bible school at Bethel; he instructed his students to examine the Bible, particularly Acts 2, to learn the biblical sign of Spirit baptism. On January 1, 1901, one of Parham's students, Agnes Ozman, spoke in tongues. With a few days, half the school had similar experiences.

Parham now began to spread the message of the "apostolic faith," as he called it. He was greeted by hostility from the public and most of the religious leaders of the time, but as news spread among those in the holiness and healing movements, Parham began to pick up converts.

In 1905 he established a Bible school in Houston to train evangelists to aid in the spread of apostolic faith churches. William Seymour, a black evangelist and subsequent leader of the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles, attended a ten-week training session and took the Pentecostal message westward.

Although the Pentecostal movement began with him, Parham soon lost control of it. Other men took over, and he was unable regain leadership of the movement he founded. A sodomy scandal involving Parham in 1907 ruined what little chance that remained of his returning to prominence. From then until his death in 1929, Parham spent most of his time outside the mainstream of the emerging Pentecostal movement.

Why can't Anglo-Catholics receive the Eucharist at a Roman rite Mass?

Why can't Anglo-Catholics receive the Eucharist at a Roman rite Mass?

Full Question

Why is it that Anglo-Catholics (or Anglicans and others who are considered Catholic) who observe the Eucharist cannot receive Communion at a Roman Catholic Mass? What is required in order to do so?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff 

Anglo-Catholics may consider themselves Catholics, but the Catholic Church does not. This isn’t a matter of snobbery; it is simply a matter of the Catholic Church remaining consistent with what it has taught and believed for over 2,000 years.

In the Anglican communion, it remains legitimate to believe that the sacrament is merely a symbol of Christ’s body and blood. Further, if one has not received valid orders, he cannot confect a valid consecration, and thus there is no Eucharist. Because of this and other theological differences in the way we understand the Eucharist, the Catholic Church has not normally allowed intercommunion with Anglicans. The Eucharist cannot honestly signify unity until that unity exists.

Why wasn't the Catholic Church established 5,000, 3,000, or even 2,500 years ago?

Why wasn't the Catholic Church established 5,000, 3,000, or even 2,500 years ago?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

God worked out his plan of salvation to the minutest detail. He knew the precise moment that the Church must be established in order to accomplish the mission he entrusted to it. We might speculate about possible reasons that made the chosen moment opportune. For example, at the time of Christ’s birth there was a single world empire (the Roman Empire), there was a common language (Greek), the Romans established a network of roads for travel and trade, and it was a time of peace. From a human perspective, at no time before or since were conditions so conducive for the spread of the gospel. But in the end we must trust that God, in his infinite wisdom, chose the best possible moment for his Incarnation and the establishment of his Church (cf. Gal 4:4–5).

Does God have a body like ours?

Does God have a body like ours?

Full Question

A Pentecostal friend of mine says God has a body just like ours. This is why the Bible talks about human beings being made in his image and why it also talks about the "arm of the Lord."

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

God is spirit, and as such he doesn't have a body (Lk 24:39: "A spirit does not have flesh and bone."). When the Bible speaks of our being made in his image, then, it doesn't mean we're like him physically. It means that, like God, we possess a spiritual aspect to our being. Like God, we can truly know, will, and love.

Part of the problem here is that many people who should know better succumb to an anthropomorphic view of God. They think of him as an old man with a long beard who sits on a throne in the sky.

However helpful such ideas maybe when not taken literally, they can be harmful when their anthropomorphic nature isn't understood. The Old Man in the Sky divinity is easily disproved and ridiculed. After the first Soviet cosmonauts returned to Earth, they thought their atheism was vindicated because they hadn't seen God in outer space.

It's a good thing they didn't see him there, for it would have disproved Christianity if they had. Christians believe God transcends the limitations of matter. He's not confined to a body at a particular place. (And he's not restricted to living on another planet as some science fiction writers have imagined.)

We should remember that our knowledge of God is metaphorical and analogical, not literal. When we assert something about God, we're saying he's both like and unlike what we're asserting. For example, we can say God lives, but we don't mean by this that he lives as biological creatures do--by nutrition and elimination, growth and development.

To take the Bible's language about God literally creates problems. The Bible does speak of the "arm of the Lord," but this can't be taken as proof that God has a body. If that were so, then we must suppose the Lord is the Supreme Chicken because the Bible also mentions the protection found in the shadow of God's wings (Ps 17:8).

In Scripture the arm is used poetically to express power or strength. The phrase "arm of the Lord," then, is a way of expressing God's power and might, not a anatomical aspect of the Supreme Being.

Isn't hell incompatible with a loving God?

Isn't hell incompatible with a loving God?

Full Question

I know the Bible teaches there's a hell, but I don't believe it. Hell is incompatible with God's love.

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff 

It's not, because God gave us the power to choose, which is essential to the ability to love. To choose God is heaven, to reject him is hell. Why? Because God is the source of all goodness, life, and happiness. If you turn away from him, you're turning away from these things too.

What kind of heaven would it be if God forced those who don't love him to spend eternity with him? Would that be loving? Would it be any less a torment for them than hell?

If you believe in a loving God who allows evil to exist in the world, you can't very well deny hell on the grounds God wouldn't permit it. If God allows bad things to happen to good people in this life, why shouldn't he allow bad things to happen to bad people in the next, especially if they choose it for themselves?

In deciding for or against God in this life, we're determining how our stories will end, what we'll finally be. It's not something which God forces upon us, but what we choose. As C. S. Lewis noted, the doors of hell are locked on the inside.

How do I answer these atheist claims?

How do I answer these atheist claims?

Full Question

How should I respond to an atheist who denies creation, claims there has been an infinite number of universes before this one, and believes that the universe was made not by God but through the "Big Bang," part of the universe's endless cycle of expansion and contraction?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

There are several points you could make. First note that in order for the universe to fall back in on itself there would have to be enough mass for gravity to overcome the outward force of the expansion. But according to the best estimates scientists have, there isn't enough matter to cause such a contraction. Consequently, if the universe cannot contract, there could have been no previous big bangs and no endless cycles. At most you could posit one big bang.

There is nothing that would cause the universe to expand again after it had collapsed. If such a collapse occurred - a big crunch, so to speak - the universe would remain in an unimaginably compressed state, never capable of expanding again. The tremendous gravity exerted by such a great mass would prevent any expansion. Black holes, which are most probably collapsed stars, are an example of this phenomenon on a much smaller scale. A black hole's gravitational pull is so strong not even light is able to escape from it.

If all the matter in the universe were compressed into a single black hole or something like a black hole, the gravitational forces would be incalculable, and it is hard to imagine anything that could overcome them. If they couldn't be overcome, nothing could escape in the form of another big bang.

Even if there were a mechanism to re-expand the universe, each cycle of expansion and contraction would lose energy because of entropy, the tendency to of matter run down, much as a spring-driven clock runs down. The extent of the universe's expansion would diminish with each cycle - consider how swings of a pendulum slowly diminish - and eventually the universe would cease expanding entirely, its mass remaining collapsed. There could never be an infinite number of successive expansions and contractions.

Keep in mind that the idea that the universe came into existence as a result of a cataclysmic explosion of highly compressed matter is not inconsistent with the Catholic teaching that God created the universe. A big bang could have been part of his method of creation.

But an atheist has a problem here. If there really was a big bang, and if there could not have been an infinite series of big bangs before the present one, then there are only two possibilities: Either God created matter out of nothing and (arguably) set things going through a big bang - this alternative destroys atheism - or matter existed for an infinite amount of time in a primordial black hole state. But if it existed that way for an infinite amount of time, it never could have exploded in the big bang.

If an infinite amount of time passed without a big bang, then every combination of protoplasmic matter and energy would have existed at one time or another within that black hole, without any one combination leading to the big bang. All the combinations would have been tried, and none of them would have produced the explosion. (Remember, this presumes an infinite amount of time.) If none of the combinations could have produced a big bang, and if a big bang occurred anyway, it could have arisen only from outside intervention, not from anything inside the black hole.

Since the whole of the universe - all matter and energy, even space Itself - was compressed into the black hole, "outside" must imply a non-natural force, a force above nature, and that is the definition of supernatural. No matter which alternative an atheist takes, he ends up with God.

Was Vatican II a mistake?

Was Vatican II a mistake?

Full Question

We should judge a tree by its fruits. Don't you think Vatican II was a mistake? After all, look at all the nonsense going on today as a result of it.

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

Not everything that happens in the name of Vatican II is the fruit of the council, anymore than everything done in the name of Christ is the fruit of his teaching or of Christianity in general.

Are there abuses and violations of Catholic belief and practice today? Sure, but that means we should redouble our efforts to implement the teachings of the council, not disregard them ourselves.

Who were the Judaizers?

Who were the Judaizers?

Full Question

I hear a good deal about the Judaizers. Who were they?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

The Judaizers were a sect of early Christians who believed Gentiles had to convert to Judaism in order to embrace Jesus as the Messiah. For the Judaizers this meant, among other things, observing circumcision, Jewish feast days, and the dietary provisions of the Law. The apostles concluded that since salvation is through faith in Christ--a condition not requiring observance of the customary Law of the Old Testament--Gentiles (and ultimately Jewish Christians as well) weren’t bound to keep Jewish customs as a prerequisite for membership in the Church (Gal 5:6).

Doesn't the fact that Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch mean that this book should be in our Bible?

Doesn't the fact that Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch mean that this book should be in our Bible?

Full Question

Doesn't the fact that Jude (verses 14-15) quotes from the Book of Enoch mean that this book should be in our Bible?

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

No more than the fact Paul quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28) means their writings should be included in Scripture. A biblical author can cite a non-canonical writing as illustrative of a point he wants to make without suggesting everything included in that writing is authentic or from God.

Aren't faith and reason incompatible?

Aren't faith and reason incompatible?

Full Question

Christianity seems ludicrous to me. I can't buy having to check your brains at the door in order to accept incomprehensible mysteries. How can I be asked to accept what I can't understand? "Faith" as you called it (I call it superstition) is irreconcilable with reason.

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

You have a mistaken notion of the Catholic term mystery. A mystery is not something about which can’t know anything, but something about which we can’t know everything.

God gave us brains and expects us to use them to understand the mysteries of faith, to the extent such understanding is possible. That total comprehension isn’t possible doesn’t mean you have to "check your brains at the door" anymore than failure to entirely g.asp quantum physics does.

There’s no real opposition between truths of reason and truths of faith, only an apparent one. When scientists propose as fact what is only an unproven hypothesis, or when theologians mistake their personal opinions for articles of divine revelation, the impression is left there’s a conflict between the two realms, but this isn’t the case. It only appears to be so because someone has erred.

Faith tell us more than we could know by reason alone, but it can’t contradict reason. Furthermore, we can use our reason to better understand our faith. In fact, that’s a classic definition of theology: Faith seeking understanding.

Did the Council of Carthage select only the books of the New Testament for the canon?

Did the Council of Carthage select only the books of the New Testament for the canon?

Full Question

A friend tells me the Council of Carthage in 397 listed only the books of the New Testament. As a result, he says your argument for including the deuterocanonical books in the Bible is flawed.

Answered by:  Catholic Answers Staff

Your friend is wrong about the Council of Carthage. Canon 36 reads:

[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, 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, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.

Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)

Two key points should be noted. First, while the names and divisions of some Old Testament books differ from contemporary usage (for example, the four books of Kings are, in modern Bibles, divided into 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), the canon is that of the Catholic Bible, not of the Protestant. Second, this canon was to be confirmed by the "Church beyond the sea"--which means Rome.