DeoOmnisGloria.com

No idea if the trackback will work, but for anyone who is interested I posted a response here. In short, I think an article of this type ought to deal with the statements of the Council of Toulouse and the general tenor of medieval Roman Catholicism toward vernacular Bibles in the hands of the laity. Paintings and stuff are nice but they're not the Word of God.

Posted by: Kaffinator at June 30, 2006 4:38 PM

So Kaff returns...and with a response that fills a need to get some attention to his own blog... How convenient. I do not have the time now, but as in previous dialogues with Kaff it is obvious that he still lacks a clear understanding of the role of the Magisterum regarding the Sacred Scriptures. SIGH:(
Peace,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at July 1, 2006 10:06 AM

Hi Matthew,

Sorry, my response was just too long to fit in a comment here, and I had a convenient spot to put it was at a blog I just started up. No intent to self-promote...at this point I'm not hosing any commercial links, unlike some blogs :-)

Unfortunately, from your dismissive comment above, I have no idea what part of my post you are critiquing. So you have added nothing to the discussion. *sigh*

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 1, 2006 9:10 PM

Hi Kaff,

I'll let Jay respond to your blog post when he's ready, but I just couldn't resist this one question you asked:

But why, if Roman Catholic churches were so diligent in producing and making vernacular Bibles available, did Wycliff or Luther or Tyndale ever have need to produce a translation at all?

I would say to make possible their own belief structures. Least we forget Luther, Wycliff and Tyndale weren't the only ones translating the Vulgate (Latin) canon into the vernacular, many faithful scholars were doing so as well. However, Luther does hold a special place when we talk about biblical translating. He, unlike others, deemed himself worthy of taking the liberty of determining which books were inspired and which were not. His comment about the Book of Revelation makes that clear enough:

I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . .
- Preface to the Book of Revelation, 1522

Let's not make Luther out to be more than he was. History clearly shows him to be nothing more than a loose and liberal translator of the Word of God.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at July 4, 2006 10:17 AM

You said "(the Catholic mass goes through every word of Scripture in a three-year time frame)." and again "And the Mass is designed to read every word of Scripture ... in a three-year period so that you are completely exposed."

This is not even remotely true. The Book of Judges is an example. So is the Book of Ruth. The Book of Revelation is hardly read from. The best that can be said is that most of the Gospels and most of Paul's letters are covered as well as a good portion of the major prophets and the psalms.

The idea that Luther was principally responsible for removing books from the Bible needs a little nuance.

F. F. Bruce, in his book "The Canon of Scripture" (page 111), points out that the first edition of the English Bible to be printed in America (1782) lacked the Apocrypha while the first edition of the Bible in any European language to be printed in America was a German Bible (1743) and it did include the Apocrypha. Luther's influence on the printing of German Bibles was not an overnight success and, in fact, the printings of English Bibles had a great influence on non-English printings.

You can read more of my reactions to what Bruce says on this curious historic development regarding the printing of the Apocrypha at my blog.

Posted by: moonshadow at July 4, 2006 10:04 PM

Hi Joe,

Me> But why […] did Wycliff or Luther or Tyndale ever have need to produce a translation at all?

Joe> I would say to make possible their own belief structures.

I could say the very same thing about Roman use of the Vulgate. To claim that belief structures drove the translation, rather than the reverse, you will need to appeal to specific examples of how they (mis)used the Greek. For example, reposted from Catholic Answers at">http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2005/11/are_catholics_a.html">at this site, we saw this claim:

”At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. [Tyndale’s] authorized Anglican version translated [I Cor. 11:28]; e.g., "and drink this cup," so that the Catholic custom of Communion under one kind should seem to be condemned by it.

But the NAB itself reads in English, “and drink the cup”. Is the present day Roman Catholic Church falsifying the text? Or was Tyndale simply being faithful to the Greek?

> Least we forget Luther, Wycliff and Tyndale weren't the only ones translating the Vulgate (Latin) canon into the vernacular, many faithful scholars were doing so as well.

The question is, were any of those faithful vernacular Bibles making their way into the hands of the laity? I maintain that they were not, and this explains why the availability of Luther’s or Tyndale’s work caused such a stir.

> However, Luther does hold a special place when we talk about biblical translating. He, unlike others, deemed himself worthy of taking the liberty of determining which books were inspired and which were not.

Ah yes, the power-drunk Luther, ripping pages from the Bible at will and forcing his opinion on the poor Germans. But you conveniently omitted this bit from Luther’s preface, which immediately precedes your quote:

“About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel.”

Luther expressed reservations. So did Jerome, who originally held that Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobias were non-canonical. Luther and Jerome had opinions. Does that make them heretics?

> Let's not make Luther out to be more than he was. History clearly shows him to be nothing more than a loose and liberal translator of the Word of God.

You call Luther a “loose and liberal translator”. You can’t attack the quality of his translation unless you can deal with German. You can’t say “history clearly shows” unless you can indicate some kind of historical perspective that relates to his translation. Can you?

I know nothing of German but I’ve heard repeatedly that Luther’s translation has had the same effect upon the German language that the KJV has had upon English: powerful and enduring.

Joe, I’m glad you commented. I hope you take the time to look more closely at that period in history, and maybe, just maybe, consider that 16th c. Christendom was just a little bit more complex than the Roman Church, pure and spotless as newly driven snow and representing an apostolic faith completely unblemished by the merest hint of error, being unfairly defiled by black Luther the evil son of Satan who probably couldn’t knead a lump of dough without adding human waste to it.

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 5, 2006 12:57 PM

Moonshadow,

Did you remember to include the readings from Daily Mass when you claim that Judges and Revelations gets skipped?

Posted by: Broken Record at July 5, 2006 1:22 PM

Yup, daily and Sunday readings but not the Commons which affects only Revelation. Usually the weekday reading is substituted anyway.

Do you have missals with an index of biblical readings? St. Joseph's provides an index. I have St. Joseph's Liturgical Bible as well, which includes only those Scriptures read at Mass but Catholic Book Publishing told me that they don't publish that reference anymore. A shame.

I didn't say that Judges, Ruth and Revelation get skipped. Jay said that the Catholic Mass goes through every word of Scripture in three years. That's not true, not even close.

Here's a quick rundown of when we read from the three books that I cited:

Judges
20th week ordinary time year I, Monday - Thursday.
Birth of Samson on 12/19 every year.

Ruth
20th week ordinary time year I, Friday & Saturday.

Revelation
33rd week ordinary time year II
34th week ordinary time year II
Christ the King, Cycle B
Eastertide, Cycle C
All Saints
All Souls
Assumption BVM

Comparing the index of these readings against the Gospels, these selections are few and small indeed.

Posted by: moonshadow at July 5, 2006 10:23 PM

Kaff,

1) Not sure what point you are trying to make in reference to Tyndale's translation...did he or didn't he mistranslate the Greek?

2) What percent of the laity during that time period, in Germany specifically, knew how to read? Is the ability to read and discern Sacred Scripture necessary for salvation?

3) Do you have any idea what the cost of paper and ink was during the time of these German translations?

4) Was Luther (or Tyndale or Wycliffe for that matter) translating in order to distribute their canons of Sacred Scripture to the masses? If so, please provide historical proofs.

5) St. Jerome may have questioned certain books but when the Church determined the canon you find no rejection of it by St. Jerome nor any separation from the Church...sadly we can't say the same for Luther. Pride goeth before the fall...

6) There is a simple proof in determining the "quality" of Luther's translation, and I don't need to know German to reach my conclusion. Did he or didn't he drop books from the original canon? If so, on what authority? If he can, does that mean any us can as well?

7) The long-term effect of Luther's separating himself from the Catholic Church continues to play out unto this day...how many Protestant denominations are there now? You're not quite right about his translation. I wouldn't say powerful and enduring, but rather disunifying, and, least we forget, modified in and of itself (his original canon was altered over 100 years ago).

I guess we just have different views of the 16th century...it all depends on what you're reading ;-)

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at July 5, 2006 11:25 PM

(Sorry folks for the poor formatting on my previous comment, I’ll try to do better next time)

Hi Joe,

Not sure what all of these points have to do with whether the RCC did in fact restrict vernacular Bible translations during the time period we’re discussing. But I’ll be happy to answer…

1) My point is simply that Tyndale was translating the Greek accurately. Catholic apologists shouldn’t be making a big fuss over Tyndale using “and” instead of “or” if the official RCC rendering is also “and”.

2) That’s two questions.

2a) I don’t have precise literacy rates. But evidently, a higher portion of Germans were literate than had access to the Word of God in a language they could understand. Hence the demand for it, a demand the RCC had left unfulfilled. Luther’s text was not the first vernacular translation of scripture but it was the first complete one.

2b) No. Literacy is not a requirement for salvation. Your point?

3) No, I don’t know. But the cost of printing had come down considerably thanks to the advent of movable type. No longer did every page require costly engraving to produce. The result is that printed material—and a lot of it—was becoming widely available.

Is it your point that access to the Word of God was justly limited due to the expense? This did not seem to slow Luther’s translation. Schaff:

Hans Lufft at Wittenberg printed and sold in forty years (between 1534 and 1574) about a hundred thousand copies,--an enormous number for that age,--and these were read by millions. The number of copies from reprints is beyond estimate.

4) Yes, this is exactly why they translated: so that the common man could hear the Word of God in his own tongue. From Luther’s own pen in this letter:

To this I can, with good conscience, give witness - that I gave my utmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have not taken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made any by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor by it, but I have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to the honor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of my life that had I translated a thousand times more diligently, I should not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even a single hour.

5) Is there a question here? Luther held that the Roman Church had separated from the gospel. That is a far more important separation in my opinion.

6) When one speaks of the quality of translation one is generally referring to the fidelity to the original and the literary quality of the result. The question of whether he felt certain works did not deserve a place in the cannon does not have any bearing on the quality of his translation.

7) Luther’s bible defined the German language, and hundreds of years later is still in use (with revisions corresponding to updated source texts). That is what I meant by enduring.

I’m going to respectfully decline to engage here on the apocrypha or the “denomination problem” because frankly they are red herrings in this discussion. Yet to be defended is the fact that the Roman Church fought against the idea that common people—people like you and me—ought to have access to the Word of God in our own language. Fortunately this is not true today, but we are talking about Luther’s time here.

Posted by: kaffinator at July 6, 2006 2:15 AM

Kaff, when we speak of Luther's modifications to the Canon we are focussing on his modifications to the New Testament (e.g. taking out the book of James which he called the Epistle of Straw) rather than the deuterocanonical/apocryphal works of the Old Testament.

You are right to note that Saint Jerome considered the deuterocanonical works secondary and that he considered them to contain material for edification rather than new doctrinal or moral precepts. From the point of view of theology or doctrine, the deuterocanonical/apocryphal becomes a moot point then.

This cannot be said of the book of James as it explains that faith without works is dead. Luther removed this for theological reasons. Jerome never invented new theological ideas and then removed from the scriptures inconvenient passages.

You are right that debating the deuterocanonical/apocryphal works is off-topic to the issue on this thread. Luther's treatment of the New Testament, however, is a major point on this thread.

I ask you this: would you purchase or distribute a bible that did not contain the letter of James?

Posted by: Broken Record at July 6, 2006 11:08 AM

Howdy BR,

> I ask you this: would you purchase or distribute a bible that did not contain the letter of James?

No. But, dude, the Luther Bible included James. It was never removed. The famous "epistle of straw" comment appeared in his prologue to James, which also includes this text:

“Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

While Luther disputes whether the epistle of James was indeed written by James the apostle, and notes that it fails to convey what he saw as the core of the gospel, he did not explicitly remove James from the canon nor from any edition of the Bible he published. In fact he translated and distributed it along with the rest of the NT.

n’kay?

Now is someone going to stand up and deal with the Roman Church not permitting vernacular Bibles in the hands of the laity ... or is it always going to come back to red herrings and misreadings of the historical record so as to pin all that is unholy in the world on a single dead German guy? Sheesh.

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 7, 2006 2:32 AM

Hello Kaff

Up to your anti catholic ways again I see. Where were you when we were dealing with the Mormon assault over here? (You) As a former Mormon I would have hoped you would care to help him from the morass or are you gonna tell me that we did well enough like when I asked you to join against the JW's... remember Kaff... Ephesians 4:5, John 17: 20-22 and 1 Corinthians 1:10.

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at July 7, 2006 9:42 AM

Kaff,
Sorry for the delay. Family stuff takes priority as you may well know:) Anyway, I want to point out two things. First, please do a bit more research before flinging out such statements as, "...how dangerous it was to the Roman Catholic Church for the laity to learn how little scriptural support existed for doctrines like the near-worship of Mary, total obedience to a world-wide hierarch in Rome, prayers to dead saints, an artificial distinction between clergy and laity, purgatory, indulgences, and so forth." PLEASE Kaff, dig a little deeper here. In addition to the comment, "some apologists remain, who, in their bitterness at the Reformers ultimate success, attempt to turn back the clock, rewrite medieval Roman Catholic sentiments, and defend the long-lost argument that the Bible only belongs in the hands of the Magisterium, who at its discretion presses honey-sweet drippings of truth from the pages of an unseen text utterly incomprehensible to laypeople, drippings which we commoners should be delighted to lick from the floor." Success??? Please demonstrate how the "reformers" have had ANY success at any real UNITY by translating the Scriptures to fit their beliefs. Any unity is superficial at best. It is not true then, and is certainly not true today 500 years later. Beyond that, your disdain towards the Magisterum merely shows your lack of understanding of its role and its parameters. The honey sweet drippings that you speak of are the foundations of your faith whether you admit it or not. The doctrines that you adhere to such as the trinity, the virgin birth, the dual nature of Christ, etc. are all Catholic doctrines that have been passed down through the ages. So every Christian denomination and/or sect owes many of its beliefs to the original [Catholic] Church. The difference is that the Protestant movement stripped away the doctrines that were held to from the beginning as you alluded to in the first quotation earlier in my post. (please see my Chesterson quote at the end about this “success”)

In this post say two things. First, reading of the Holy Scriptures has always been encouraged (especially for those WHO COULD ACTUALLY READ) and there were admonishments against owning certain Bibles which I will show why, but at the same time there were translations, many of them, in the common language of the people. As we see below:

There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST, translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countries of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latin, being made Provinces to the Romans. But now the Latin Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interprets nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine.) S. Augustin. de doctr. Christ. lib 2 cap II.

Now through the Church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin Translations, even before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire; (for the learned know that even in S. Jerome's time, the Consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnics, and about the same time the greatest part of the Senate also) S. Jerome. Marcell.Zosim, …yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbors with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) 2 Kings 7:9, but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, THEY PROVIDED TRANSLATIONS INTO THE VULGAR FOR THEIR COUNTRYMEN, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their Minister only, but also by the written word translated.

If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the turn. First St. Jerome saith, Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita sunt, etc. i.e. "The Scripture being translated before in THE LANGUAGES OF MANY NATIONS, doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian and Hesychius) are false." S. Jerome. praef. in 4::Evangel.

The same Jerome elsewhere affirmeth that he, the time was, had set forth the translation of the Seventy suae linguae hominibus, i.e., FOR HIS COUNTRYMEN OF DALMATIA S. Jerome. Sophronio

So, S. Chrysostom that lived in S. Jerome's time, giveth evidence with him: "The doctrine of S. John (saith he) did not in such sort (as the Philosophers' did) vanish away: but the SYRIANS, EGYPTIANS, INDIANS, PERSIANS, ETHIOPIANS, AND INFINITE OTHER NATIONS being barbarous people {that is, non-Greek speakers} translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to be (true) Philosophers," he meaneth Christians. S. Chrysost. in Johan. cap.I. hom.I.

To this may be added Theodoret, as next unto him, both for antiquity, and for learning. His words be these, "Every Country that is under the Sun, is full of these words (of the Apostles and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not only into the Language of the Grecians, but also of the ROMANS, AND EGYPTIANS, AND PERSIANS, AND INDIANS, AND ARMENIANS, AND SCYTHIANS, AND SAUROMATIANS, AND BRIEFLY INTO ALL THE LANGUAGES THAT ANY NATIONS USETH." Theodor. 5. Therapeut.

In like manner, Ulfilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus and Isidor (and before them by Sozomen) to have translated the Scriptures into the GOTHIC tongue: P. Diacon. li. 12.

John Bishop of Sevil by Vasseus, to have turned them into ARABIC, about the year of our Lord 717; Vaseus in Chron. Hispan.

Bede by Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part of them into SAXON: Efnard by Trithemius, to have abridged the FRENCH Psalter, as Beded had done the Hebrew, about the year 800: King Alfred by the said Cistertiensis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon: Polydor. Virg. 5 histor.

Methodius by Aventinus (printed at Ingolstadt) to have turned the Scriptures into SLAVONIAN: Aventin. lib. 4.

Valdo, Bishop of Frising by Beatus Rhenanus, to have caused about that time, the Gospels to be translated into DUTCH rhythm, yet extant in the Library of Corbinian: Circa annum {around the year} 900. B. Rhenan. rerum German. lib 2.

So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England, (Thuan). or by the Lord Radevile in Polony, or by the Lord Ungnadius in the Emperor's dominion, but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalms, "As we have heard, so we have seen." Ps 48:8

Now Kaff, as to the admonition to NOT read or possess the Bible, the Church in her infinite wisdom had the good of the people in mind. As we have seen there were many translations into many different languages, but some of the translations contained many errors and heresies. First things first though, the Church has always encouraged the reading of Scripture—at least by those who COULD ACTUALLY READ (or have you forgotten that most of the world was illiterate at that time)?

"At a time when a great number of bad books . . . are circulated among the unlearned... the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Bible; for this is the most abundant source which ought to be left open to every one to draw from it purity of morals and of doctrine" (Pope Pius VI, 1778).

Pope Leo XIII (1878) did much to promote the reading of the Holy Scriptures. He founded a congregation for the advancement of biblical studies; he addressed a letter to the whole Church on the subject of the reading and study of Holy Writ; and he granted special blessings to those who devoutly read the Holy Scriptures daily.

The Church authorities at the Synod of Oxford, in 1408, forbade the laity to read UNAUTHORIZED versions of the Scriptures. In other words, she forbade them to accept as Scripture what really was NOT Scripture. For example, the Albigensians of the 13th century made a translation of the Bible, which would square with their erroneous teachings. (See Hallam, MIDDLE AGES, Chapter IX). And Sir Thomas More says "Wycliffe took upon himself to translate the Bible anew. In this translation he purposely corrupted the holy text, maliciously planting in it such words as might, in the reader's ears, serve to prove such heresies as he 'went about to sow.' " (EVE OF THE REFORMATION, Gasquet, Chapter VIII). The Lollards changed the text still more, and made the Bible support the anarchy which they later preached throughout England.”

"Tyndale's New Testament" was published under King Henry VIII; the "Bishop's Bible" in 1568; "The King James" or "Authorized Version" in 1611; "The Revised Version" in 1881. Each of these was brought out because the previous one was found to contain errors. (See "History of the Reformation of the Church in England," by J. H. Blunt, Ch. I).

Zwingli, writing to Luther, in commenting on his translation of the Bible into German, says: "Thou dost corrupt the word of God; thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the Holy Scriptures; how much are we ashamed of thee!" (Vol. II, DE SACRAMENTS, p.412).

Here are some of his typical corruptions:
"Wherefore, brethren," St. Peter commands us, "labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election" (2 Peter 1:10); But Luther omitted the words "By good works."
"We account a man to be justified by faith" (Romans 3:28). Luther added the word "alone."

Calvin's translations of the Scriptures were equally faulty. A Protestant authority says: "Calvin makes the text of the gospel to leap up and down; he uses VIOLENCE to the letter of the gospel, and besides this, ADDS to the text." (See Molinaeus' TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Part XI, p.110). In his APOLOGY, Sec. 6, Mr. Burgess, a Protestant, says of the English Protestant version: How shall I approve, under my hand, a translation which has many omissions, many additions; which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?"

So the prohibition of the Catholic Church against Bible reading had reference to the reading of FAULTY TRANSLATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES. Such faulty translations are not surprising, as the devil, too, quotes the Scriptures dishonestly: In Matthew 4:1-11, we read: "At that time, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil... Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, and set Him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him: if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down. For it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee.

"This we read in the 9Oth Psalm; but there the prophecy was not spoken of Christ, but of the just man; so the devil has quoted the Scriptures dishonestly. As Satan changes himself into an angel of light, and even from the Holy Scriptures prepares snares for Christians, so now he uses the testimonies of Scripture itself not to instruct, but to deceive.

So Kaff, I think this will suffice for now and I will comment later regarding your lack of understanding on the Magisterum. I leave you with a comment from the genius G.K. Chesterson regarding the Bible:

“The Church has been accused of hiding the Bible, which of course is not true, but even if it had been true, it would have been a less astonishing achievement than that of the Reformation, which succeeded in hiding everything else about the Faith.”

In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at July 7, 2006 11:46 AM

Kaff,

Just saw Matthew's post before approving mine, please make sure you take a look at his comment. He replies in greater detail than I have taken the time to do.

I'll need a little time to review your different quotes and references. However, I will go ahead and stand up and deal with the Roman Church not permitting vernacular Bibles in the hands of the laity.

While the Catholic Church may have discouraged the laity from having vernacular translations of the Bible, She has never discouraged knowledge of Sacred Scripture nor the proclamation of Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture has always been a vital basis and source of the Church's liturgy, art, prayers, and catechesis.

When the Church did make such declarations She had good cause. There were many, including Luther, promulgating his own Christianity, falling to understand that Jesus Christ Himself had entrusted the Church not individuals with the Sacred Deposit of Faith. It is the Church that has been given the divine proclamation to go out and make disciples of all nations. When one separates themselves from the Church, who wrote and promulgated the New Testament, who arranged and definitively declared which books would be present in the canon, and who holds, to this day, the sole right to do so, they separate themselves from the very Word of God Himself in that they knowingly (as in the case of Luther) defy the "pillar and bulwark of truth". Now am I saying that this is applicable to all of our separated brethren today? By no means, the Church has written extensively on this. But it most certainly was applicable for Luther, who was, least we forget a Catholic to begin with. There were many others, before and after him, who saw problems in the Church and sincerely made every effort to correct those problems from within. In our modern age, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II immediately come to mind. Yet Luther didn't do this, he chose to take a radically different route and, whether or not you want to talk about it now or not is irrelevant to me, the end result of Luther's action has been the continual disunification of Christendom.

In terms of quality of translation, I object to your comment that all that matters is the actual translation of words. So if I translated the Bible to English from the Greek and decided the Gospel of Matthew isn't necessary you'd say I did a fine job translating it just because I was accurate in my literal translation???

It all comes down to authority. To say that Sacred Scripture is the sole measure or source of truth and/or authority is to contradict Scripture itself. And you know it... To say that we can know that Sacred Scripture is the truth without an authoritative source is illogical. The Church is absolutely necessary and in perfect accord with the way God has worked from the very beginning.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2006 3:02 PM

Hi Joe,

> In terms of quality of translation, I object to your comment that all that matters is the actual translation of words. So if I translated the Bible to English from the Greek and decided the Gospel of Matthew isn't necessary you'd say I did a fine job translating it just because I was accurate in my literal translation???

1) Here let me say it again. Luther didn’t remove any books from the New Testament.

2) But even if he had, the phrase “translation quality” necessarily refers to the text that was translated. Does it capture the sense of the original, is it readable, does it speak well in the target language, etc.

3) This is a red herring anyway. I’m not here to defend a German translation when I can’t even read German. If it pleases you to think it was a crummy translation and the Germans were and are stupid to continue to use it, you’re entirely welcome to that opinion.

Hi Matthew,

I don’t have sufficient time to respond to everything you wrote, as I’m taking my own family vacation tomorrow. Suffice it to say that apostolic faith properly emphasizes the unique role of scripture and its value to all Christians.

Matthew> Now Kaff, as to the admonition to NOT read or possess the Bible, the Church in her infinite wisdom had the good of the people in mind.

Oh, well that changes everything. As long as it’s for someone’s good then I guess that makes it OK to put barriers in between people and the Word of God. This policy sure did wonders for the 16th c. Germans, didn’t it?

And, look, if it was simply the fact of bad translations, the Roman Church with its resources could certainly have produced a better one, or an earlier one. But Luther’s was actually the first complete German translation on the scene and it apparently has never been equaled. You should ask yourself why the most vivid, enduring, and impactful translations of scripture had to come from outside of Rome.

Hi WWWO,

I really am sorry I missed the fun. However in debates between Catholics and Mormons I am probably not all that welcome. Mormon: Joseph Smith. Catholic: the Pope. Me: Scripture. Now it’s a three-way mudwrestle. But feel free to send me an email on any discussion if you think I might do some good.

To all my RCC brothers,

I know we differ, in some areas sharply. But I see no evidence here that any of you are not lovers of truth and followers of Christ. May God bless your ministries.

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 8, 2006 3:31 AM

Kaff,

I realize you said you didn't want to join the 3-way mud wrestle about Mormonism but I am dying to hear a "Sola Scriptura" argument which requires all married Christians to practice monogamy. Luther often liked to confound Christians by saying there were no biblical prohibitions against all forms of polygamy.

I often wonder what Protestant women think of this...

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at July 12, 2006 7:16 PM

Hi Burnt,

This is pretty far off-topic, so out of respect to our hosts, let's not get into Luther's, Augustine's, or Paul's statements on the matter (1 Tim 3) here.

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 15, 2006 3:56 PM

Kaff,
I hope you enjoyed your vacation. Welcome back. I was re-reading your earlier posts and you said:

“Now is someone going to stand up and deal with the Roman [Catholic] Church not permitting vernacular Bibles in the hands of the laity ... or is it always going to come back to red herrings and misreadings of the historical record so as to pin all that is unholy in the world on a single dead German guy? Sheesh.”

Well, in my post I specifically dealt with this issue in detail (and threw in the dead German guy along the way) and Joe seemed to have concurred. I stand behind my previous response to your comment above as evidence that your question has been addressed. However, the same pattern of yours continues as in previous postings. Once you get a difficult response then there is a tendency to respond to a less salient point. You asked the question, I’ve answered as best I could from my resources, and yet we lack a cogent response from you.

However, to address what you did respond to:

Matthew> Now Kaff, as to the admonition to NOT read or possess the Bible, the Church in her infinite wisdom had the good of the people in mind.

Kaff> Oh, well that changes everything. As long as it’s for someone’s good then I guess that makes it OK to put barriers in between people and the Word of God. This policy sure did wonders for the 16th c. Germans, didn’t it?

A couple of things here Kaff. First, yes as the protector (i.e., bulwark) of truth (see 1 Tim. 3:15) the Catholic Church did have the best interests of the people in mind. It was not JUST a matter of faulty translations. It was a matter of heretics changing the Word of God to fit their own doctrines—some more than others, but still changes that deviated from original Apostolic doctrine passed on by the [Catholic] Church. Specifically Kaff, have you conveniently forgotten or are not aware of the Albigensians beliefs?? For instance:

1. They believed in two Creators--one of invisible things, whom they called the benevolent God, and another of visible things, whom they named the malevolent God.

2. The New Testament was attributed to the benevolent God; but the Old Testament to the malevolent God, and rejected it altogether, except certain authorities, which are inserted in the New Testament from the Old; which, out of reverence to the New Testament, they esteemed worthy of reception.

3. They affirmed also, that all the fathers of the Old Testament were damned and that John the Baptist was one of the greater demons.

4. That Christ who was born in the visible, and terrestrial Bethlehem, and crucified in Jerusalem, was a bad man, and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine; and that she was the woman taken in adultery, of whom we read in the gospel. For the good Christ, as they said, never ate, nor drank, nor took upon him true flesh, nor ever was in this world, except spiritually in the body of Paul....

So it is rather clear as to why the Church, in her God given wisdom, would not allow UNAUTHORIZED versions to be held by the laity, and as I’ve said before and will say again…most people were ILLITERATE at the time so even if they had a translation in their own language very few could have even read it. Even today it is estimated that 16% of the world’s population is still illiterate to include 1 out of every 7 Americans (40 million) who are functionally illiterate! In all Kaff, your argument is based on half-truths at best. However, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to your commentary and as always may Christ light your path to truth and holiness.

In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at July 19, 2006 3:37 PM

Hi Matthew,

It’s fine to accuse me of leveling half-truths, and I will gladly retract if you show that something I have written is inaccurate. But, sadly, you haven’t, and your accusation reflects more on you than on me.

I concede that the Church Universal should stand in objection to intentionally misleading translations and false theology. But you need to deal with the fact that that all vernacular translations were under restriction, including Catholic ones. The Council of Trent (1564) itself stated in section IV:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.

Did you catch that? According to the Council of Trent, only those with explicit permission from the pastor or confessor could a layperson read even an authorized Catholic translation. Let me repeat this so that you don’t miss it. EVEN AUTHORIZED CATHOLIC TRANSLATIONS WERE RESTRICTED.

How does an entity call itself the “pillar and support of truth” while simultaneously preventing access to the word of God? By claiming that it’s just too dangerous to allow people to read the Word, that’s how. Look, Matthew, do check with your priest for permission before you open up a vernacular translation of Jeremiah or Hebrews? If so, you stand in direct violation to the Council of Trent, and I can only say, good on ya, mate.

You are right that literacy rates were lower and costs of production higher during those centuries. So what? In your own argument, there were plenty enough readers and plenty enough resources to produce bad translations. Do you mean to say there were not enough readers or resources for good one? Let them eat Latin.

Consider the alternate approach exemplified by Wycliffe Bible Translators, whose ministry includes producing Bible translations for people who don’t even speak a written language, let alone literacy. These folks bring in linguists to learn and analyze the language, actually create a writing system from scratch, and then teach literacy, just so that God’s Word can be read and understood by a previously unreached people group. Now that is how I would expect the Church to operate as pillar and support of the truth. And so it does, but not exclusively under the Roman Catholic umbrella.

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 20, 2006 1:14 PM

After a week to reflect.

* Matthew, you are right that I sometimes respond too quickly and focus on a point that the commenter might have considered secondary. For this I apologize and I will try to do better.

* Joe, in particular you were bringing the discussion around to a discussion about authority. I basically didn’t respond to that at all and perhaps I should have earlier.

You say that there is no way to know that Scripture represents truth without an authority to back that up. This fits in line with a sola ecclesia viewpoint that reserves the authority of the Roman Catholic Church as the source of the text of the Bible. With this viewpoint in place it is not so troubling that the RCC, for the good of its adherents, might sometimes suspend access to scripture by those it deems unqualified to read it. Of course Trent did more than this, but the fact is that under sola ecclesia it would be perfectly within the RCC’s rights to burn every last shred of scripture in existence--Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or vulgar--if it somehow served the purposes of the church to do so.

The plausibility of such a disturbing course of action is one reason I reject the apologist’s claim (which is not really the Catholic Church’s claim) that the authority of God’s Word is somehow dependent upon the authority of the church. Scripture itself teaches that it is not the result of a group of humans figuring out what to say. It is the result of spirit-breathed inspiration that occurs through certain individuals throughout history. Because its source is the Holy Spirit, its unique authority and utility remains constant, no matter what any earthly society, even the church, might make of it.

By analogy, we might ask: during periods where the Old Testament was essentially ignored by the Hebrews, was it still God’s Word? Of course it was. And if the OT remained scripture without the assent of the Church (since it did not yet exist) or any significant number of believers, why would things have to be any different for the NT?

Joe, you are right that it would be illogical to assert that Scripture was authoritative without an authoritative source. But that authoritative source is God. Not the Church.

* To everyone, frankly I’m surprised that after more than a week there has been no response to my reading of the Council of Trent. In this thread the original post claimed “The Catholic Church did the opposite of keep the Bible from the people: she encouraged them to read it and even made it available to them as she was able.” And repeatedly, commenters have insisted that the only thing the church really did was to prevent bad translations from getting a foothold. But a plain reading of Trent shows that the Roman Catholic Church wished to keep AUTHORIZED translations out of the hands of the laity. Surely this marked dissonance between Jay’s original post and the pronouncements of an official Church council is worth a reply? Either Jay's claim is wrong or my reading is. Anyone care to comment?

In Him, Kaff.

Posted by: Kaffinator at July 28, 2006 8:57 PM

You spelled the word led WRONG right near the top of your web site commentary. You have it as "lead"! Change it now to "led" since it looks very bad, making you appear as quite ingnorant and uneducated, as you may very well be. To find this on a web site meant to educate is almost as pathetic as all your false doctrines. Rememner the inquisition and all the demonic fools who allowed it and were part of it including the !@#$%%$#! pope of that days??? Write about that you spelling bum!

Posted by: Jim at July 29, 2006 2:05 AM

Can you specify one of the "false doctrines," Jim? If so then we can have a discussion about it. Otherwise you're just ranting.

I fixed the typo for you ;-)

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2006 8:43 AM

i have one question... how did the printing press led the catholic church to have less control over books written throughout europe...tnx

Posted by: xv at August 22, 2006 3:25 PM

Did the Roman Catholic Church forbid the reading of the bible, of course they did and went as far as murdering translators who sought to make it available to the butcher, baker and candle stick maker. Only those who could read Greek Hebrew or maybe latin could read the bible's that were in chains in a building the property of the clergy (payed for by the people)instead of a mans home. Education had very little to do with keeping the bible from the people, it was more "Ignorance is the mother of devotion".

May God give you 20/20 spiritual vision.

Uinsin

Posted by: Uinsino Riabhaigh at January 19, 2007 12:30 PM

Uinsino

Did you read any of the original post? The stuff you posted has been clearly debunked on this site. Don't listen to liars man... they are from the father of lies.

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at January 22, 2007 10:22 AM

Can you tell me were the name Catholic came from and also my wife had put a candle out by mary for prays for her love one and on the same day they the catholic church put in the trase please write back. thank you

Posted by: Donald at January 24, 2007 7:48 PM

Donald

The word Catholic means universal.

Christ in Scripture prays that the church be as one in John 17:20-23 so that the world would believe.

The word Catholic can be found in the writings of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch who was ordained by Peter and trained by John. These Apostles as well as Paul trained him (see Ignatius' letter to the Romans). We note that in Paul's writings Paul reaffirms Christs prayer of unity and condemns those who would split the church... see 1 Cor 1:10. and Ephesians 4:5.

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at January 25, 2007 11:41 AM

Hi Donald,
The first documented use of the word Catholic Church was by St. Ignatius of Antioch around 110 A.D. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle.:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH." Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

The word itself--catholic, or katholike' in Greek--means universal, in the sense of appearing everywhere. St. Ignatius was eventually martyred at Rome. I hope this is helpful Donald and we will keep your loved one in prayer.
God bless,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at January 25, 2007 12:09 PM

Hey Jay,

I'm a Catholic homeschool mother of eight children. My oldest is 16, and youngest is 1. I am the only Catholic left in a protestant-converted family. It's sad, hard, and frustrating at times. I am regularly confronted and challanged with anti-catholic misconceptions. Recently, I was told, "The Catholic Church prohibitted Bible reading in the early 1900's." I knew this wasn't true and did a "google" search. I found your article, printed it out, and mailed it to my misinformed loved one. Thank you very much. I've enjoyed reading all the comments as well. I don't understand why the baptists/protestants/non-denominationals/etc... just don't get it! It's obvious the Catholic Church is the one true church established by Christ. Can anyone else trace their church's roots to Christ? They can maybe claim they can (believe me, some of my Baptist relatives claim this), but it's a free country, anyone can claim anything! The question is,"Who has the evidence?" Only the Catholic Church has the written documentation which proves this claim. To use the inquisition and other medieval acts against the church is ridiculous. Did their church exist during that time? To use sins/scandals as a reason against the church is also ridiculous. Even Jesus's own 12 were sinful men. You can't get more scandelous than Judas's betrayal! One more point, if following the Magisterium's interpretation of the Bible is so heinous, what about each Sunday accepting Brother Bob's, Ben's, Stan's, Mike's, (or whoever's)interpretation? No wonder there are so many "splits" in the protestants. Brother Bob, Ben, Stan, Mike (or whoever) each can interpret the Bible the way he sees fit. I asked this question once to my good Southern Baptist family member and was told, "He doesn't interpret his own way, he uses a study Bible with the interpretation at the bottom of each page." My response, "Yea, but who put that interpretation there?" Their response, "I don't know exactly, but I'm sure it's people who have really studied the Bible." You can see why these "confrontations" are so frustrating.

One good thing about having a protestant family is that I am constantly challanged to learn and grow as a Christain and know what it means to be Catholic. My Catholic Faith is strengthened after each challange. I, in turn, pass this information on to my children who know far more than I did at their age. Who knows how Our Lord plans on using their wisdom and knowledge in the future.

Thanks for listening
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 5, 2007 2:52 AM

Mary

If I may interject before Jay posts a reply. I have many similar encounters amongst my family and friends. I noted that indeed we need to defend our faith but we are also being called to recognize "grace." The invincible ignorance of many is ruled by prior popes a form of grace given to some. From what I've experienced and read we are being called to greater prayer devotion. For some its the rosary for me it is weekly adoration and the chaplet of divine mercy. God has allotted me the time and I am shocked and honored by His indulgence.

I saw an interview with convert/apologist Tim Staples he has been blessed with many of his family converting. His brother became a priest. He says for him living the faith was the visible witness that shocked most of the family and that was enough for them to convert.

Grace comes in many forms we are being asked to implement that grace then perhaps we too will be blessed by these conversions.

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at October 5, 2007 10:41 AM

Hi When We Were One,

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I admit it, I blew off some steam there!!! You're right, a good Catholic always adorns themselves with "grace". I will try to remember to offer the pain and hurt that I feel for my family's conversion.

I have a huge Baptist family ( my siblings were all Catholic as children. they were taken one by one with the "alter-call" ). We do have many similarities and several things in common. We all love The Lord, and we all have wonderful children with excellent character. On family get togethers, I hear such comments as, "The Pope believes in evolution", and, "the evangelicals were the first church, not the Catholic Church, and "The Catholics added extra books to the Bible." etc... I could go on and on. Particularly with one sibling, it seems to be a regular "sport" haha. Out of respect for my parents and keeping peace, I usually don't say anything (occasionally I do), and leave the room. I always discuss these inaccurate comments later on with my older children.

Is this what you recommend? Or should I defend The Faith every time? I'm very outnumbered! I kind of feel like the football player at the bottom of the "pile-up" :-)

Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 6, 2007 3:34 AM

Mary,
I sympathize with your situation, but I promise you that your faith will grow exponentially through this. A suggestion to bolster you against attacks is a resource that I've found invaluable. John Martignoni is a fantastic apologist who defends the Catholic Church from the bible alone and does it in a very straightforward manner. His approach is ecumenical yet does not water down the truth of our faith. Even better, all his resources are FREE! His website is www.biblechristiansociety.com and I promise you won't regret it. I'll be praying for you.
In Truth,
Matthew

Posted by: Matthew at October 7, 2007 5:50 PM

Mary

I feel for you.

I go by what Peter told me...to defend the faith. Yes when an ignorant remark is made I attempt to correct with a Catholic answer. For example my mother in law noted that miracles no longer occur after the death of the last apostles...to which I asked for a reference...none could be given. Then I pointed to Polycarps martyrdom where he could not burn and had to be speared by a soldier. She could not see that as a miracle and only remarked "but he died didn't he see no miracle" (invincible ignorance i believe)? Another time she noted that we didn't need baptism to be saved. Then I quoted John and 2 Peter that says the opposite and she was shocked no stunned and couldn't say anymore...that one got thru.

Then I saw a special on St. Benedict. His order has produced more saints than any other. Benedict emphasized silence in most everything...for our desire to speak most often reflects our desires and not that of God. So sometimes now I just pray when I note they are blinded. This has coincided with my decrease in posts... I noted that my posts were often taken as vitriol rather than advice... and Benedict spoke to me in that way. Although my intent is not to offend but rather defend... to many protesting christians they felt otherwise, and God forbid I turn some from the truth due to poor writing and a bad attitude... If I am not with Him I am against Him (He that gave everything up for me).

I agree with Matthew...we both find Martignoni helpful...but he as helpful to protestors with reason as much as with knowledge. Have you read Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism"? If not it is a must. Both Grodi and Hahn read it during their conversions. Also for the really obscure anticatholic (ie I heard pope so and so in 1301 said a cuss word.) I highly recommend the 3 book series Radio Replies by Frs. Rumble and Carty... This is what Keating recommended and it totally rocks.

We need to pray for each other. If my feeble/selfish mind remembers, I will try to bring your intents to our Savior at adoration this week...remember mine...come back and ask me if I remembered in case i selfishly have forgotten.

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at October 7, 2007 9:56 PM

Matthew,

Thanks for the website recommendation. I'm always looking for good books to read. This sounds helpful...Bible alone...the language of the protestants (Oh by the way, my baptist family doesn't think they are protestants since they were the FIRST Christians, not part of the protestant reformation... This is what I'm up against!)

For awhile I used to be intimidated by all their Bible knowledge, but my husband and I finally noticed that they use the same verses over and over and totally omit others such as "Faith without works is dead", and the gospel message of "separating the sheep from the goats", and many more. These verses of course don't support the faith alone theory.

I'm going to check out that website tonight. Thanks very much for your prayers.

Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 8, 2007 1:35 AM

When we were One,

I think what you are saying is that sometimes we should defend the Faith and sometimes we should be silent. And if we choose to defend, we should know what we're talking about, and we should be careful to not become known as a belligerent Catholic. Is this right? I do worry that the more I learn, the more anger I feel inside when anti-catholic comments are made. I guess this is good... and bad. Good that it bothers me, bad that I'm angry. I'm already thinking about the Thanksgiving get-together. *AHHHHH**STRUGGLE** I will need extra Grace!!!

Thanks for the book recommendation. I've read Keating's "The Usual Suspects". I'll order this one as well. Your prayers are appreciated. I'll do the same!!

**************************************************************************************************************************************

It's important for ALL CATHOLIC PARENTS to know why my siblings (5.. all older) have left the Catholic church. I'll try to make this as short as possible.

I grew up in a very weak Catholic home. We went to church now and then, and that's about it. My parents believed the Catholic schools/catechism class was teaching us what we needed to know. This is a big mistake!!! I went to Catholic schools in the 70's and 80's. Religion class was strictly about social issues, at best. ( my priest says this is a common complaint). My oldest sibling left first (easy pickens by the "Are you saved movement"). The others left the church one by one. I would have probably gone too if I had not married a fairly strong Catholic (he's very strong now!). He kept me Catholic, but I always felt intimidated and somewhat ashamed around my family because they sounded "right", and I was stuck in this "medieval religion". I knew in my heart that I loved being Catholic, but I didn't know why. When my oldest daughter was about 12, I noticed her listening to the anti-Catholic comments. It was like a light-bulb went off...."She's going to leave the Catholic Church one day". I started "devouring" book after book (The Gift of the Church, Unabridged Christianity, Catholic Homeschooling, Catholic Truths for Children etc...) Finally, after 35 years, not only did I love being Catholic, I knew why!!! My next mission was to teach my children The Faith ( a very long mission with 8 children) We spend about 2 hours a day studying Catholic Church doctrine/apologetics and praying.

CATHOLIC PARENTS, PLEASE DO NOT 'LEAVE IT' TO THE SCHOOLS/CATECHISM CLASS TO SOLELY TEACH YOUR CHILDREN THE CATHOLIC FAITH. THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE AT HOME BY YOU!!!!

***************************************************************************************************************************************

In Christ,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 8, 2007 2:25 AM

Mary,

I deeply admire your courage in defending the faith in such difficult circumstances. A novice such as myself has no business advising a seasoned warrior such as yourself. I can, however, share with you a few things I have seen and thought about along the way.

1. a few things that have not worked very well for me (they may work for you or they may just be plain stupid).

a. Showing deficiencies in the Protestant faith has yet to show any fruit. One of my favorites is to tell them about this book I read where a bishop's clothing was being used to cure illnesses. Then after they roundly condemn the superstitious practice I direct them to Act 19.

b. Pointing out that Luther and Calvin condemned the use of contraception based on Genesis 38 has yet to have any effect on Protestants. Though this would suggest that Christianity began in the 20th century rather than in the 16th or the first.

c. Pointing out that Peter and the Apostles settled a doctrinal debate in Acts 15 by making an official ruling on behalf of all of Christendom has yet to convince a Protestant that they only have two options: either believe this power continues to this day (pointing to Rome) or believe that this power disappeared (making it impossible for any Church denomination to even resemble the early Church)

d. Pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church does not preach salvation by works (as is commonly misunderstood) but preaches salvation by grace has yet to make an impact upon those I have spoken with.

2. a few things that have worked well for me in the sense that I felt I had been a faithful witness after doing it

a. asking questions to clarify what other people mean. Remembering the prayer of Saint Francis often brings me peace in this area. "O master grant that I may never seek... to be understood as much as to understand". To be understood by another is not always possible and God does not ask this of us. But to understand another, even in their error, is a noble undertaking.

b. responding to questions others have. People seem more willing to listen after they ask a question. 1 Peter 3:15 is often a rallying cry for defenders of the faith. But I cannot help but notice that while we are called to answer those who ask us to give reason, we often want to defend the faith when no one has yet asked us to do so. (for example, when people insult the Roman Catholic Church and go on about the sex abuse scandals or its allegedly poor interpretations of Scripture)

c. correcting people who misrepresent the Roman Catholic position. Of all situations, this one vexes me like a thorn that will not go away. On one hand, it drives me crazy when people put words into the mouth of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other, whenever I endeavor to correct such misinformation I commit numerous sins against the virtue of charity.

d. keeping silent in all other cases. I have come to think that when people want to know more, they will ask. If they aren't asking questions, I begin to wonder if that is an opportunity to practice the non-verbal methods of evangelization.

3. Some things I would like to try because I think it would work...

a. spiritual Jui-jitsu. Responding to an attack on the faith not by defending against it by making a surprise manoeuver of conceding the point and showing how the point conceded actually leads us to some core truth of the Roman Catholic faith. Christopher West does a good job of this (www.christopherwest.com) but he certainly didn't invent the technique. Pope John Paul II's encyclicals often take this strategy in a scholarly sense (using phenomenology and biblical criticism to present his Theology of the Body). Aquinas did this with Aristotlean scholasticism. Saint Paul did this in Athens with his sermon on the temple to the Unknown God. Jesus started the whole trend off with his parables.

b. articulating Pope John Paul II's exegesis of Ephesians 5. The authority that the husband bestows upon the wife mirrors so closely the authority that Christ bestows upon his Church that I feel that Protestantism has, in rejecting the papacy, diminished the marriage relationship into but a pale shadow of what it can and should be. If I could only express my attitude towards this fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant mindset, I think people would understandably mistake me for a giddy schoolgirl who has just fallen in love with a handsome prince and cannot stop going on and on about this fabulous suitor.

Mary, I would like to close with a word of encouragement: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8)

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at October 8, 2007 3:01 AM

Mary

LOL...see I cant communicate in print well! Yes you got my message.

Another book that really helped me in these first church arguments is written by Evangelical Baptist now convert... Rod Bennent called The Four Witnesses. He was taught like these folks that the Catholic church ruined original Christianity but before 300-500ad or so it was pure...so he decided to review what the earliest christians were talking about...this book is an absolute must read...Do you watch the Journey Home on EWTN mon nites @ 8 pm... it is a show that brings on Protestant clergy that have recently converted to Catholicism. There is a massive movement in Christianity where poorly catechised catholic laity are leaving the church but the choicest educated Protestant clergy are flocking to the church in droves (200-500/ yr I believe) the most recent revert Francis Beckwith fmr president of the Evangelical Theologic Society. Anyway these clergy sometimes note writings essential in their conversions.

Another thing that really helped me was seeing a professional anticatholic 2 yrs ago and employing his logic I forgot his name (white hair...always on TV ...disowned a daughter that was in the movie industry) anyway this guy used some good logic in defending the gospels vs seculars. He noted that many claim that the gospels were fabricated in the 1st century and unreliable. He pointed out that if someone today were to make up a story about the Kennedy assasination (ie an indian on a hill in Waco in 1968 killed Kennedy with a bow and arrow there would be a huge uproar because of the living eyewitnesses. We would find these arguments denouncing this fabrication all over...but we don't see arguments all over denouncing the gospels) Hopefully this man will use this logic in reviewing Roman as well as early Christian documents. Romans were killing us because they thought we were canibals ( If we weren't really claiming to eat the "real presence" then we would have seen John who wrote Rv. in the 70-90s denouncing our claim that this was really his body blood soul and divinity. But we don't see John writing this do we? He is allowing scores of Christians to die in the colloseium (sp?). John lived just down the road from Corinth...but when the Corinthians are in trouble after the death of Paul, they continue to write to Rome for advise...we have their letters to Pope Clement. Why isn't there this huge uproar especially from John if Clement isn't now considered the universal Bishop? Also the 1st Cent prayers to the dead in purgatory in the catacombs... why don't we see the outrage in Paul's and Peters letters... they fled to the catacombs where are the 1st century writings denouncing this common practice from Paul and Peter?

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at October 8, 2007 11:00 AM

Hi Burnt,

Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I'm a warrior that got in the battle kind of late. By your knowledge and advice, I'd say you've passed me up.

I see exactly what you mean on many of these points. I'm starting to find out that it doesn't matter what I say, no one's minds are changed either direction. Instead of one side looking aggressive and prideful, you get both sides looking that way...and that's a very ugly appearance on a Catholic. Number 2 d is looking like a very good choice(keeping quiet). That's funny to me, because that's how I was for years (before I knew any doctrine), then when I became more knowledgeable, I started defending and arguing more. That has just led to frustration and sometimes anger. Should I go back to being quiet? I don't know, that is going to be tough, and will take much strength. I will have to pray on that one. Number 3 A sounds Great! Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to try that. I would love to watch someone else try it though. haha. Let me know how it goes.

Thanks again for your insight. You have directed me to some interesting thoughts.

God Bless,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 9, 2007 1:20 AM

Hi When We Were One,

That book does sound good. I'll add that to my list. (thank goodness I love to read) I will have to watch that show. Sounds like there could be hope in my family converting back if the President of the Evangelical Theologic Society converted! I'll stay hopeful, but it doesn't seem likely. My family seems to be...how do I put it?...advanced anti-Catholic. Don't you think that Catholics who leave the church seem to attack the Church most visciously? I think they truly HATE the Catholic Church. With that said, I think they truly LOVE me. You and Burnt had some good advice. I am going to try to focus on our common Christianity and keep peace. Being belligerent is not attractive for any Religion. Case in point: I have several family members who are comfortable with saying "You're going to hell", or "They're going to hell", or So-n-so is going to hell" etc... I always cringe when I hear those words! How can anyone here on earth make a judgement call like that? I went to a Baptist baptism and the preacher said the same thing....about a dozen times. He was referring to himself before he was "saved", but nevertheless, he was shouting those horrible words out to the congregration. My little ones were scared to death. This aggressive behavior (especially in church) made me realize how much I love the beauty, respect, love, and peace that I feel in the Catholic Church and that I see in my Catholic family. I will try to portray those qualities in my everyday life, especially when it seems most difficult.

That is an EXCELLENT example of defending the Gospel, The Eucharist, and the early Catholics.
Can I share that with my older children?

All this chat has been very theraputic for me. You ( and others) have given me much to think about and have encouraged me to search my heart.
God Bless you for your time,

Mary

PS. I was at a wedding recently and the Protestant minister said "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." (without the cross signing) Does this surprise you? Could this be a positive step forward for unity?

Posted by: Mary at October 9, 2007 2:15 AM

Mary,

In addition to talking the talk, you walk the walk and you fight the good fight. I have yet to get beyond the talking stage and I hope that when the time comes, I will act with the same courage you have already displayed.

As for your relatives hating the Church but loving you, I found the following article by Steve Wood quite helpful in putting things in perspective.

To summarize, Steve Wood (a former Calvinist preacher turned Catholic) contends that Evangelical Protestants try to convert Catholics out of a genuine and understandable desire to save souls from hell. In particular, Evangelical Protestants believe Catholics go to hell because Protestants believe that Catholics reject the doctrine of "salvation by God's grace alone" and teach instead a doctrine of "salvation by one's good works".

Mr Wood observes that although the Catholic Church teaches salvation by God's gratuitous grace (Catechism article 1996), so few Catholics are aware of this teaching that Protestants are ignorant of this point through no fault of their own.

So the next time you feel dog-piled upon (a heavy cross to bear to be sure), you might find it helpful to remember that they are quite likely (through no fault of their own) of the mistaken belief that you are trying to earn your way into heaven (I have met staunch Catholics who believe they can earn their way into heaven). In that context, their attempts to convert you make perfect sense as a misguided act of love.

If you can successfully convince them that the doctrine of "salvation by God's grace alone" need not divide Catholics and Protestants, you will have accomplished much in furthering the cause of Christian unity. If your attempts are unsuccessful, you can make a greater accomplishment by joining Our Lord in uttering the prayer "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at October 11, 2007 1:03 AM

Hi Burnt,

Yes, this does seem to be the dividing factor. There are many others, but this one is the first and foremost... the one that seems to come up most often. But, how can we reach unity when they believe that once you pray "the prayer" you are saved, no matter what sin you commit....guaranteed salvation. Any good deeds on earth are done only to earn a reward in heaven....treasures in heaven. They do believe there is one "loophole" in their guaranteed salvation and that is the "unforgivable sin"

This doesn't even seem close to what we believe, and in my oldest child's exact words," It sounds way too easy, and the "unforgivable sin" doesn't make any sense with the saved guarantee.

But nevertheless, I do agree with you that we can and should be able to get along and respect one another. The most important agreement is that we all are Christians, love the Lord, and accept him as our personal Lord and Savior. I don't think neither Catholics nor Protestants have a problem with this.

I think I have become very prideful lately trying to prove the Catholic Faith is right. One thing for sure is that not one person i've tried to convince has "budged" in their beliefs. For example, Jay's article "Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible Reading" that I printed out for my misinformed loved one was never mentioned. I'm sure she received it last week. When I talked to her a couple of days ago, she seemed a little "cold and distant". I ended the conversion telling her I love her, and the next time we spoke she was fine. I don't think she read it, and I think it made her angry that I sent her more Catholic information (I've been sending out alot lately:-). I do think my family at least gets the message that Catholics do have reasons for what they believe. So my efforts are not completely in vain. When it comes to my Baptist family, I will take your advice from now on and pray "forgive them Father for they know not what they do (say)"

My most important mission now is my 8 children. We are working hard to instill a love and establish deep roots of Catholicism in their hearts. My husband bought 100 Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth pamplets. My children and I are leaving them all over town! Check out lines, doctor's offices, etc... When we run out, we'll order more! No arguing, no fighting, just spreading the Catholic Faith. We also are teaching them, if called to marriage, to welcome children as gifts from God. That's ALOT of future Catholics! This will be my most important contribution to the Catholic Faith.

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue.

Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 13, 2007 2:10 AM

Mary

Did you happen to read Joe's post on the Bible and Catholics... I also like this one from a slightly different angle.

http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2005/11/are_catholics_a.html

In Love

wwwo

Posted by: when we were one at October 15, 2007 5:10 PM

Mary wrote: Yes, this [salvation by grace] does seem to be the dividing factor. There are many others, but this one is the first and foremost... the one that seems to come up most often. But, how can we reach unity when they believe that once you pray "the prayer" you are saved, no matter what sin you commit....guaranteed salvation.

You state quite clearly the fundamental disagreement between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals concerning salvation. Though this raises my curiosity on three points:

1. Does your family believe that there is agreement between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals on the concept that no one can earn salvation? If so, this is great progress. If not, you may be able to attempt educating them on this not very well known point.

2. Given the differing positions on whether salvation can be lost, is your family willing to show the Roman Catholic faith the same respect that it shows towards Christians groups who believe that salvation can be lost? I'm thinking in particular of Methodists, Wesleyans, Anglicans, and Arminians who disagree with the Calvinists and Evangelicals on the "perseverance of the Saints". To my knowledge, these Christians who believe that salvation can be lost aren't denounced as the whore of babylon.

3. Has your formerly Catholic family noticed that numerous and glaring similarities between the words of the Evangelical "sinners prayer" (which supposedly brings salvation) and the Roman Catholic "act of contrition"?

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at October 16, 2007 5:13 PM

WWWO,

This article was very informative! Thanks for the recommendation. It was more "technical" than the one written by Jay, but I think I got most of it! (I'm only average intelligence:-}

Bless you,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 17, 2007 12:45 AM

Hi Burnt,
Many interesting questions to ponder here; I'll start with number 1.
After receiving many Protestant tracts, I've relieved my siblings' anxiety by letting them know that I have prayed "the prayer", and meant it with all my heart. I think both Catholics and Protestants(by the way, my siblings don't think they are Protestant) agree with this prayer (or some variation). The difference comes after this prayer. Catholics believe good works are necessary for salvation (see the Book of James, specifically "Faith without works is dead"), and also that salvation can be lost with mortal sin on one's soul. I've tried to explain this, but to no avail. Many times I've gotten upset, and one time in particular, I decided to "cut family ties". This "debating" is extremely upsetting to my elderly parents. It's not worth it to me, besides, I'm not changing anyone. I've tried mailing information, but I think it's getting tossed in the trash before it's read. The best approach, is to keep peace. When I see that "messy can of worms" being opened, I usually head out the room. When I hear words such as "so-n-so is saved", or "so-n-so is going to hell" (that holier-than-thou judgemental attitude) it's my cue to go check on the kids. One good thing (among many) about having so many kids is that there is always a preschooler or toddler that needs to be checked on. It's a good out:-)(Blessed are the peacemakers!) They do believe that I am saved, (I hope so too), and this seems to have helped minimize the debates.

No, I don't think my family is willing to show respect to the Catholic Church. One of the reasons is because they left the church. This is one way to justify leaving. It is also why they arent' interested in reading anything I send, they really aren't interested in knowing the Truth. Another reason is the same reason why many denominations dislike the Catholic Church...it's very popular. Kind of like disliking the popular kids in high school and calling them names(like whore)when in actuality, jealousy is the culprit. That one-eyed green monster that shows it's ugly face on everyone from time to time. Anyway, that's my opinion as to why the Catholic church is so despised.... justification for leaving, and jealousy.

As for the Act of Contrition, how do you suppose I could get them to read it or listen to it? That's the tricky part, but it's a great point!

Thanks for the excellent questions and ideas!

Posted by: Mary at October 17, 2007 1:54 AM

Burnt,
I'm not sure if I addressed your number 1 point. By earning our salvation, do you mean as in indulgences? I actually don't think that subject has come up with my family... surprise! But we definitely do differ on the importance of good works and the reasons for it. Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation (whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you did unto me...now enter into the home of my Father.) But good works must be done out of a genuine service and love for others, not for "self" reasons. For example, working in a shelter out of love and compassion for those in need as opposed to working in the shelter because there's a really cute girl working there:-). On a smaller scale, cleaning the house so it will be nice when your spouse comes home. These are genuine good works out of love of others that help us to reach salvation. Protestants also believe in good works, but for different reasons. The way I understand it, their good works seem to be centered around "saving" as many people as possible (missionary work, nursing home outreach, etc..). I was told that they will be held accountable for anyone that they could have saved but didn't. This will explain their aggressive/pushy behavior. Also they believe that good works earn them a higher position in heaven. I don't know, but both of these reasons for good works sound a little selfish to me. But I apologize for sounding judgemental on that statement.

I think we all agree that good works alone are not enough for salvation. An example of this is Hollywood. Take a look at the stars who are doing good works, but whose lifestyles obviously resembles those of "lost sheep"

Again, the major difference seems to be that they(Protestants) believe they are saved whereas I believe I am in the process of being saved. Saved is past tense, meaning one's work is through. One day I hope to be saved. They believe they already are saved and unless they commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy, they have an automatic ticket! How nice! As a Catholic, I believe I have to be worthy of Salvation.

Posted by: Mary at October 17, 2007 4:05 PM

Mary wrote: Catholics believe good works are necessary for salvation (see the Book of James, specifically "Faith without works is dead"), and also that salvation can be lost with mortal sin on one's soul. I've tried to explain this, but to no avail

Did you know that Anglicans, Wesleyans, Methodists, and Arminians agree with Roman Catholics on this point? I'm ever so curious as to whether they show respect to those groups of Christians.

As for the Act of Contrition, how do you suppose I could get them to read it or listen to it

Umm... if they were raised Catholic, shouldn't they know an Act of Contrition by heart? If they have grown to adulthood without knowing the Act of Contrition (I had formally left the Church, returned, and turned 29 before I learned the Act of Contrition), they were deeply wronged by their catechists and the Church owes them a big apology.

I would be even so bold as to suggest that if they do not yet know the act of contrition, then they may have very well been taking a step closer to the Roman Catholic Church by praying the sinners prayer, leaving their old ways behind, and making their first act of contrition.

If I were to take a guess on someone else's salvation, I'd wager for a Protestant who has prayed the sinners prayer over a Catholic who has never made an Act of Contrition.

This raises an interesting question: are Catholics who have been taught to confess regularly and make acts of contrition less likely to leave the Roman Catholic Church for an Evangelical one?

After all, a Catholic who has never made an act of contrition would be internally longing for an opportunity to renounce sin and place itself at the mercy of God. The sinner's prayer could thus appeal to a Catholic who had been denied proper opportunity to make an act of contrition.

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at October 17, 2007 9:34 PM

Hi Burnt,

I posted a 2nd message before your last one; I don't know if you saw it. I went back and I think I answered your suggestion number one better.

Wow, you hit the nail on the head with this post! This is a good point in making sure children are brought to confession on a regular basis. This is probably the main point as to why my siblings left the church. My oldest sibling at one time (junior high, I think) had a relgious calling to be a nun. She now says that's because she thought that was the only way she would get to heaven. My siblings and I were all very poorly taught church chatechism. My parents brought us to church now and then, never confession. My siblings went to public school, and attended catechism rarely. We were in a very "cold" parish. The priest was very unlikeable (my current priest said this was true,he didn't care for him either), which made the church feel "cold and unfriendly". A BIG mistake my parents made is talking about the priest negatively in front of their children. I think "bad seeds" were planted which took root and grew with my siblings, particularly the oldest one. When she went to college, the friendly, welcoming faces of the non-denominationals were very appealing. Especially for a young adult who was longing for salvation, the "sinners prayer" was what she was looking for her whole life(this is the one who wanted to be a nun in order to reach salvation). Naturally, her "good news" was brought home to the other siblings. The others left The Church easily. I would have too, I guarantee it, but I married a "lukewarm" Catholic. After 18 years of marriage, we are now "on fire" Catholics:-).

Well, what's done is done, the past cannot be changed, and my siblings most likely will not come back to the Church. But like you said, they are better off praying the "sinner's prayer" and being a saved Protestant than being a "dead" Catholic.

On a positive note, I have learned from the mistakes made by my parents. First of all, it's the parents' duty to make sure children are properly taught catechism. Others can help, but parents need to make sure kids are on the right track with their catechism studies. Second, follow the teachings of The Church and church doctrine. Go to church, confession, and always be an example of a good Catholic. Third, pray with your children. Fourth, When a conflict arises with a member of the clergy, if possible discuss this away from the children. If this is not possible, then explain to them that the conflict is not against the Catholic Church, but against a person in The Church. When someone in The Church has done wrong, it's not The Church's fault just as it was not Christ's fault when Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, or Thomas doubted Him. Parents need to be careful to not plant bad seed against the Church in their children's minds.

There are plenty of other churches out there that consider it their duty to convert Catholics. Our children need to be strong, well rooted, and ready for these evangelicals. We bought 50 "How to Stay Catholic in College" pamplets to send out to grads in the future. The pamplets are wonderful and are so easy to mail with a graduation card.

My siblings left The Church because of poor parental teaching, poor catechism studies, and a weak church parish. As for knowing the Act of Contrition, my guess is that they probably learned it when receiving their 1st Penance, but rarely, if ever, prayed it again. I'm sure it's been completely forgotten. My parents didn't go to confession or bring us.

A quick story: I didn't think(because of the way I was brought up) that confession was necessary. I went for the first time in years when my first child received the Sacrament. The only reason I was going was so that I didn't look like a hypocrite to my child. Other parents were going with their children so I said, "I'll just go and get it over with" (hubby said, "no way"). I picked the most "non-threatening" looking priest. When I sat down, I was so overcome with emotions, all I could do was softly weep for all to see. I couldn't even talk!!! Anyway, the priest absolved me of all my past sins! It was an amazing experience that I will never forget! My husband went for the first time in years soon after that. I'm sure this is the same experience a person(Protestant) feels when he/she walks down that isle during the "alter call" for the first time. I've seen them cry too, and I'm sure it's an experience they will never forget! If you look at it like that, we're really not that different.

I think most Protestants dislike the Catholic Church so much because it's so "big". This makes it a "big" target. As for my siblings, I think there is a certain amount of anger at The Church for not being properly catechised (is this a word?) They never mention anything against Methodists, etc... I think there may be a certain amount of "justification for leaving" going on too. I'm not quite sure, but it's not anything new that Catholics are persecuted...right?

Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at October 19, 2007 2:35 AM

For Kaffinator and all protestant apologists. The Catholics on this blog offer readily a history of the compilation of the Bible. The Protestants on this blog keep saying go by what Scripture says but do not offer an historical explanation as to the composition of the Bible and how we know that these books are the Scripture in which God wants us to wholly adhere. I have heard Protestants say (and not necessarily on this blog) that Catholics have there own version of the Bible and it is not the Scripture that we are supposed to be reading, but who has the authority to declare which books are in the Protestant Bible and where is the evidence that this/these persons have the authority to establish the Bible. Is it in Scripture? Is it in the history or confession of a certain church or leader? This is the problem I am now having to face and I am currently Baptist!!

Posted by: skelly at October 30, 2007 12:12 AM

Hi Skelly,

If I may ever so humbly try to address your questions as a Catholic.

You're right, Christ did not leave us with The New Testament portion of the Bible. These were written later, and decided on by The Catholic Church about 400 years later which ones to use, and the order. Catholics have more books in the Old Testament ( I believe 7 ) which are at the end of the Old Testament. These books were written before Christ, but were written in Greek, not Hebrew. Greek had become the "common" language of the Jews at that time. This is the same Old Testament used by Christ, the Jewish people, and the Christians up until the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther decided to take out these books during the Protestant Reformation because they were not originally written in Hebrew. You ask "who has the God-given authority to decide which books should be in the Bible, and how the verses are to be interpreted? Catholics believe Christ left The Church to his disciples, therefore the Catholic Church has that authority. He gave special authority to Peter, leaving him "the keys" to The Church. (Matt 16:19) We believe Peter is our first pope(actually means papa) and the apostles are the first bishops/priests. That's why we say in our creed, "We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Many people mistakenly believe that this means we worship the Church and the pope (I've been told this many times by my Baptist family) Actually what the creed means is as follows:

We believe in...

"one" - Jesus established one church, not a collection of different churches/denominations. The church is referred to as "The Bride" of Christ in the Bible. We believe that Christ can have only one bride.

"Holy" - Jesus makes the Church Holy. Members may be imperfect and unholy ( as Judas was ), but the Church itself, established by Christ, is Holy

"Catholic" - Means universal. For 2000 years the Catholic Church has been spreading the good news of Christ throughout the world.

"apostolic" - The apostles were the Catholic Church's first leaders. These apostles (and their successors) did not have a Bible as we know it today. That's why Catholics believe Sacred Tradition is just as important as The Written Word. The first disciples taught The Good News through oral teachings known by the Catholic Church as Sacred Traditions. One of these Sacred Traditions is The Trinity. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible.

The Bible can be interpreted in different ways leading to confusion. That's why there are so many "splinterings" in the Protestant religions. We believe only the Catholic Church has the authority to correctly teach The Good News of Christ through Oral Tradition and Sacred Writing.

I hope this helps. May our Lord guide you as you search for The Truth.

Many Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at November 1, 2007 2:47 AM

skelly

How did you find deoomnisgloria?

In Love

wwwo

Posted by: when we were one at November 1, 2007 12:40 PM

Once a few years ago I did a yahoo or google search for "rapture". I came across an article disagreeing with the theory. This summer I wanted to read on it again and my internet searches led me to mostly Catholic Websites. It is seeming to me that Catholics take Scripture more literally and seriously than Bible only folks when you look at it objectively, which I know is hard to do. All my life I've heard that the Catholic Church was not "Biblical" but ironically it seems more "Biblical" than most denominations, even ones that claim that Scripture is the only Revelation. I have come to realize that we practice plenty that is not strictly "Biblical". For example, I think that the "Sinner's Prayer" is "Biblical" yet it is not in the Bible. I prayed that when I was 9 and was baptised when I was eleven. Yet I have never found the sinners prayer in the Bible, even though I it has been developed using concepts from verses that are pulled from all over the New Testament. However, if I am going to claim to live only according to Scripture, there is no commandment to pray this prayer in the Bible. There are commandments to repent, be baptized, to confess Christ with your words and deeds, love thy neighbor, take up thy cross. I do believe if someone prays the prayer and really means it and from then on follows Christ as best he can in word and deed, and allow God's will to supplant his own, then he will be saved. It's not in the Bible though to just pray the prayer and you are automatically saved no matter what the way most Baptists believe. Even though in the church I am currently attending I am really getting a sense that they may be getting away from that somewhat even though they may not realize it, just listening to what is being preached. It's just that you and the owner's of this blog have made alot of sense though I am still struggling with some concepts such as the role of Mary, not historically but contemporary, and I just really am trying to get my feet back on the ground spiritually and theologically since recently trying to turn back to the Lord and given these realisations about what I honestly believe, that there is not a "Bible" only church out there, even those that confess to be. I am sorry this post came out so long but as you may guess it's not even half of the story.

Thanks,
skelly

Posted by: skelly at November 1, 2007 10:26 PM

Mary,
Thanks for your reply. I scrolled to the bottom first and missed it initially. I really wish that more Catholics, and more Protestants who assume to know what Catholics believe, would look into it and realize these things that you have just shared with me.
Thanks
skelly

Posted by: skelly at November 1, 2007 10:39 PM

Hi Skelly,

You give me hope! My family has all left the Catholic Church. Between me and my siblings, there is one Catholic (me) and three different types of Baptists. I pray that one day we will all be One in Faith again.

My siblings don't undestand my devotion to Mary either. Once, we were going to all buy my parents a garden statue. One sibling looked at me and said, "No Mary statue." Even though I wasn't planning that, my heart was deeply saddened. I don't understand, how can a statue of a girl, boy, rabbit, etc... be OK, but not Jesus's mother?

The best way to explain Catholics' love for Mary is to think about how much a mother is intimately connected with her child. Catholics identify their own feelings for Mary with the feelings Jesus had for his mom. We are devoted to her as our mother, we do not worship her.

Not only was Mary with Jesus for His first 30 years, she was also present at the most significant events in the Gospels...The Incarnation, His birth, His first miracle (changing the water into wine), His death, The descent of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost), and more.

Many of our beliefs about Mary are from Sacred Traditon, meaning they were teachings from the early church leaders. When the Protestants left The Church, they rejected most Sacred Traditions, and accepted Scripture alone. That's probably why Mary's Immaculate Conception, every virginity, and Assumption may seem "strange" to Protestants. There is evidence in writing, though, that the early Protestants, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli also believed in devotion to Mary and many of these Sacred Traditions including Mary's ever virginity

Hope this helps...

Many Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at November 3, 2007 2:09 AM

skelly,

Although I accept and promote the Roman Catholic approach to the Canon of Scripture, the divide between Catholic and Protestant on this issue might not be as wide as we might think.

Catholics in good standing have seriously suggested that the OT books in debate (Tobit, Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, Baruch, etc...) although inspired are not required to settle any matters of doctrine. Catholics maintain, however, that the deuterocanonical works remain highly suitable for the edification of the faithful.

Many Protestants have also moderated their opposition to "the wretched apocrypha" and begun including these works with study Bibles - for private edification.

In addition, Catholic and Protestant Bible scholars in good standing with conservative circles have used the aprocryphal / deuterocanonical works as valuable aids in bible translation and exegesis.

To be sure, there still remain many important differences between Catholic and Protestant confessions that present obstacles which cannot be ignored by people seeking greater unity. But that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at November 3, 2007 11:03 AM

How come Catholics don't bring bibles with them to church, im jus wondering?

also, do u really need to be a certain type of christian, or is God satisfied if ur just a christian period and if u try to do what u think God would want u to do?

thank you, joseph

Posted by: Joseph at November 3, 2007 7:11 PM

Does the Magisterium/Vatican view these 7 "extra" books less important than the other OT Books? If so, I didn't know this.

I do know that the most compelling verses in support of purgatory are in 2 of these books:

"Be generous to all the living, and withhold not your kindness from the dead" (Sirach 7:33)

"Thus he (Judas Maccabees) made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin. ( 2 Maccabees 12:38-46)

There are also some NT verses that give a hint of purgatory. Paul in 1 Cor. talks about a person being saved but only as through fire. We also have Sacred Traditions and writings of the early Church. But the most compelling Biblical argument for purgatory is within these 7 books. A firm belief in purgatory and praying for the dead is a big part of who we are as Catholics.

When I look at my Bible (New Am. Bible), these 7 books don't stand out in any way as less important than the others.

Also, these books were used by the Jews in Christ's day including the Holy Family.

As far as I know, the Catholics put together the OT Canon around the year 400, and there has been 46 Books in it ever since.

I am glad the Protestants are now reading these Books :-) I didn't know that.

Peace,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at November 4, 2007 3:17 AM

Joseph and Mary

Ha ha.

Some really good comments you guys have made. First off Mary I agree with your post if skelley is still reading, more of what you said is nicley placed at this site http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28

Joseph...welcome and I think your comments are awesome. You ask a few things and I will try to answer them. First why don't Catholics bring their bibles with them. Some Catholics do bring their bibles to Mass but not most I agree. It is not banned if that is what you're wondering. A couple reasons come to mind.

First many Protestants are unaware that the Church refuses to just go throught the few favorite passages of the local priest. The Church deems it absolutely important that the entire bible be read in church cover to cover during each mass over a 3 year schedule...so if you went to mass every day for 3 yrs yes you would go through the entire bible. How is this possible you may ask? Every mass we go through a psalm an old testament a new testament and a gospel reading... also our songs mostly contain bible verses to music they are not really made to rock out cds but rather honor God through his gift the holy Scripture.

I would enco