Ouch. Again. You ought to do a bit more studying of history because your comment screams ignorance. You do not understand Catholicism if you think we worship idols.

You also do not understand history if you think the KJV is a proper Bible.

I used to be like you but I had to be intellectually honest with myself when I learned more history. This is why I cannot take any of this personal and I feel sorry for you. I hope you will take the time to educate yourself on the other side of the argument. If what it says does not hold up, you will know. The truth does not fear investigation. Go and read and poke holes, then find both sides of the argument. I will tell you that most history on the internet is anti-Catholic, but so was the KKK and I suspect the same types of people are behind both the KKK and the internet. Freemasons are everywhere. Oh did you know the #1 enemy of the Catholic Church is Freemasonry? And vice versa? Even Muslims know this. Why is that? Why was Jewish Adam Weishupt pretending to be a Catholic Jesuit only to then form an alliance with Enlightenment/Secular Humanist/Qabbalist Rofschild to for the Illuminati Banking Cartel?

You have a ways to go. Catholic ideology and theology is on point. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and it is the ONLY Church that can make that claim.

They gave you your Bible that the Protestants hacked apart. You will be embarrassed and ashamed of you comments when you finally pull your head out of your butt and be honest with yourself about what you have read.

If you are ready learn, I will answer any question asked in good faith about the Catholic Church or point you to the answer.

I believe every Protestant has chosen to “protest” because he believes that his non-Catholic tradition is true, and that Catholic Tradition isn’t. Out of reverence for the truth (as he believes it to be) he cannot go where he does not believe true religion is being taught. If he does not believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be, he’s not going to be Catholic; that’s fair and commonsensical.

But what if we could show our Protestant brothers and sisters that Catholicism is the truest and most complete form of biblical Christianity? If we could do that, who knows what good would come of it. Then, perhaps, the world would be less scandalized by Christian disunity and bickering; perhaps Christians could be more united on the moral and ethical fronts of society; perhaps more lives and souls would be saved; perhaps God’s will would be done.

I am certain that if Protestants saw the Catholic Church as it really is, most would enter it at any cost; not as a “change of denomination” but as a perfection—a completion—of the faith they’ve held as a non-Catholic Christian.

If the Catholic Church really is “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20) and the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (Tim. 3:15), what Christian would not want to be in it? Indeed, if Christ really did establish a church on earth as the Scriptures clearly reveal—one that “the powers of death shall not prevail against”—then where is it? This is the question that every Christian must ask; and if he seriously desires to be in it, he must not stop asking, “Where is it?” until he is certain he has found it.

More here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-every-protestant-cant-not-know

On idols:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/do-catholics-worship-statues

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-veneration-isnt-idol-worship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk-JPpa5DYc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TYKrArSrLU

Jesus established the Catholic Church, a claim no other church can make:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-church-christ-founded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFPg-Kg5Tg - What was the First Christian Church?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sCDAKsoebo - Do Catholics Worship Jesus?

As for the Bible...

Perhaps no area in Catholic-Protestant apologetics involves as many outright falsehoods as the history of the Bible. To be sure, there are lots of theological topics on which Catholics and Protestants disagree, but for sheer number of popular Protestant arguments that are explicitly and undeniably false, nothing tops the question of where the Bible comes from and how many books it has.

Of course, there are plenty of historical debates both in and out of Christian circles. For example, there’s the annual fight over whether Christopher Columbus was a great or terrible man. That’s an issue upon which reasonable people, looking at the same evidence, may disagree. But imagine if one side of that debate claimed that there was no evidence Christopher Columbus even crossed the Atlantic. That’s the level of argument to be found in the surreal world of many Protestant versions of the history of the Bible: that of outlandish claims and easily disproven falsehoods.

For example, you may be familiar with Ken Ham and his website Answers in Genesis. The site sells a DVD called Why 66? The Canon of Scripture, presented by “the acclaimed British theologian and Bible teacher Brian Edwards,” identified as “one of Ken Ham’s favorite apologists.” Edwards spends nearly an hour trying to defend the idea that the sixty-six-book Protestant canon is the correct one, and his presentation is riddled with egregious factual errors. Perhaps the most galling of these is his claim that “it’s true that some of the early Church leaders beyond the New Testament quoted from the Apocrypha, though compared to their use of the Old Testament very rarely, but there’s no evidence that they treated them as Scripture” (Edwards asserts this at the 16:26 mark in the video).

No evidence that they treated the “Apocrypha” (more accurately, the deuterocanon) as Scripture? Rubbish. In book II, chapter 8 of On Christian Doctrine (c. A.D. 397), St. Augustine listed “the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised,” and his list was exactly the Catholic (seventy-three-book) canon. After listing the entire Catholic canon (including the deuterocanonical books) he explains that these books are the full expression of “the authority of the Old Testament.”

Or consider what the entire Church taught at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which quoted Sirach 32:19 and referred to the book as “divinely inspired Scripture.” And evidence points to even earlier recognition of the deuterocanon as Scripture. In a letter to Africanus, Origen (c. 184-253) refers to the story of “Susanna in the book of Daniel, which is used in the churches”—this is a story not found in the shorter Protestant version of Daniel—and later that “the churches use Tobias” (the book of Tobit, which Protestants reject).

Africanus had argued that Christians should use only those Old Testament books considered canonical by the Jews—an argument also commonly used by Protestant apologists. To this, Origen responded,

Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although his Son, God who is love spared not, but gave him up for us all, that with him he might freely give us all things?

Significantly, he then quoted Prov. 22:28, “You shall not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set,” suggesting that a distinct Christian Old Testament was old news by the early 200s.

Bizarrely, Edwards himself even admits that the earliest biblical canon known to man, the Muratorian Fragment dating to c. A.D. 170, says that “the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor” is canonical. Edwards concedes this, but only “because otherwise somebody who knows so much about it will come up and remind me afterwards I didn’t tell you,” and he asserts that it must have been a “coffee break slip by the copyist,” as if some careless scribe’s pen slipped and added several words by mistake.

More on that here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-curious-case-of-the-protestant-bible

Other articles on the Bible and the Catholic Church:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/didnt-the-catholic-church-add-to-the-bible

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-the-most-common-objection-to-the-deuterocanonical-books

The Catholic Old Testament contains seven books that are not found in Protestant bibles (Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees) as well as certain portions of the books of Daniel and Esther.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/protestantisms-old-testament-problem

Martin Luther was not afraid to challenge the canon of Scripture. He relegated four New Testament books to an appendix, denying that they were divinely inspired. Though this alteration of the New Testament wasn’t adopted by the Protestant movements, his alteration of the Old Testament was, and by the end of the Reformation Protestantism had removed seven books (the deuterocanonicals) from the Old Testament canon.

Also notice that your bible includes the Alexandrian mysticism cult books of the apocrypha, while the KJV Standard does not.