Deuterocanonical Books and the CC. What do we protestants lack?

[Esdra]

I agree that lumping protestants together is bad form and I apologize. Yet I know of no protestant denomination who uses a 73 book canon. And regardless of what is included in the,“Revised Common Lectionary”, I suspect that every protestant asked will point to the 66 book Bible as being “The Word of God”.
Also, Esdra is a member of a “Free Evangelical Church” who, as far as I know, have never been big on using anything outside of the 66 book canon.
Perhaps his local community is different.

Peace
James

Hi,

thanks for clarifying. I should maybe have written “Bible onlyists” instead of Protestants.

Nevertheless, I’ve also never heard of any protestant Church that would use the Deuterocanonical Scriptures in service. Maybe they are taught when studying theology or they are read by families at home, but I am quite sure that they are not read in Church.

I’ve been at a Lutheran funeral lately and there were also no verses from the Deuteros used but from the 66. (As a former Catholic I know that there are many verses in the Deuteros that could and are used by the CC at funerals!)

Yes, I am in a “Free Evangelical Church” which is something similar than a Baptist Church.
And no, we only use 66 books. Many of my brethern I’ve talked to (and who didn’t convert but were risen Evangelical) don’t even know that the Deuteros exist and when you say apocryphs they think of the gnostic apocryphal books of the NT like the Gospel according to St. Thomas.

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Dave, Dave, Dave…

Did you purposely leave out the fact that Martin Luther did **not **consider the deuteroncanonical books to be the “equal of Holy Scripture?” He separated them and placed them "between the Old and New Testaments. He claimed that they were good to read, but not the equal of Scripture. Read the section “Luther’s Bible” here: books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC05742122&id=rl3lcbLkHV0C&pg=PA521&lpg=PA521&dq=luther+%22are+useful+and+good+to+read%22#v=onepage&q=luther%20%22are%20useful%20and%20good%20to%20read%22&f=false

With regard to the churches of the East, etc., keep in mind that Kinko’s didn’t exist at that time, nor did the Internet. Things took time to spread. The authority of the Church, centered in Rome, however, was recognized. Yes, there were heretical groups that popped up from the very beginning, from time to time, but they considered themselves as members of the one Church, the Catholic Church. Those heresies were defeated, usually by Councils of the Church. Unfortunately, they still pop up again and again today, because the “person” behind them (Satan) has never gone away. He just keeps disguising them as “something else” (which they’re not) like a person who just can’t dress right, and keeps changing into different odd outfits of mismatched clothing, trying to seek acceptance among the “normal.”

But Dave is right! Luther didn’t remove anything. He maybe wanted to (concerning especially some Letters in the NT and revelation) but what counts is what he did and not what he intended to do.

I know for example also that “Hebrews” is in Lutheran Bibles between Philemon and James. He considered Hebrews also not that important (nevertheless especially Hebrews is quite often used in our Church. At least we had one sermon about it lately) and also because it is unsure whether Paul is the author of it, or not

Esdra

 

[gmcbroom]

I think the Ethiopian Orthodox actually have the largest amount of canonical books in the bible they use 81. Truth is, whether its 81, 73, or 66 the canon strongly influences how every church or ecclessial community forms its tenets and traditions. If those under the protestant tradition simply need 66 then all power to them. I like the 73 book version but I should since i’m catholic. As for the orthodox they have their own and it seems to work for them. I’d love to get an 81 book version just to compare. Of course since i don’t speak Ge’ez I’ll have to hope an english version comes along.

 

[Esdra]

There is a very thorough discussion of the deuterocanonicals and their convluted history in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is a small part of it that discusses the Councils that addressed the issue in the Western Church:

The full text of the discussion can be read here.

I think that at the very least what we know from history shows us that the postion taken by Martin Luther was novel, and that it arose in part because of his rejection of long held Catholic doctrine - specifically purgatory.

Peace,
Robert

Hi,

but actually I am thankful that Luther rejected the authority of the Catholic doctrine.
Theologically seen there WERE many problems in the CC and through Luther the Church started to reflect and in the later counsils many steps were taken which Luther actuallly wanted to be seen changed in the CC.

But I am also thanful because of another aspect:
As my mothertongue is German, I have to point out that Luther’s translation of the Bible from Latin into “modern German” was VERY important for the development of the German language; because Luther went on marcet-places and so on to watch the people speak, what they are saying.
Actually Luther’s bible was the first and most important attempt for the standardisation of the modern German language!

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Esdra,
I want to try to clarify what is perhaps the primary issue as regards the DC books in relation to their inclusion/exclusion in the bible.

You asked earlier what you protestants are missing by not having them. The short answer to that is the “fullness” of God’s written revelation.

…]

Hi

first of all, you remind me of the Mormons who claim to have the “fulness of the gospel”!

Secondly, if you consider the LXX to be the “fulness of the gospel” no single denomination has that* (except maybe some Oriental Orthodox. I am not too sure about their Canon! - Although, as far as I know, they have a lot of apocryphs who are not even in the LXX) *because even the EO Church lacks some of the books of the LXX. (as I have stated above in this thread).

The Bereans, by the way, probably **did **have “the fulness of the gospel” (together with the “oral tradition” concerning Christ from the Apostles) because I suppose that they used the whole LXX.

Why did the CC in their counsil to fix the Canon “cross out” the missing books from the LXX? I am sure there are also some very good and important parts in it, just like in the deuteros!

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Excuse me for butting into the conversation here but as to the issue of the Deutero’s I would like to make two points.

The first is the specific point of what might be contained in them that protestants lack.
One example relates to Purgatory and Praying for the dead. Something clearly accepted by Catholics and rejected by the majority of Protesants.
From HERE

Hi,

in your link above I found the following sentences:

Purgatory is described as a prison in Matthew 5:26 where “You will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” In hell there is nothing to be paid back. You are in there forever. Surely this passage, as well as the passage from 1 Peter 3:19 where** Jesus “preached to the spirits in prison”** do not refer to hell. Jesus has nothing to say to the eternally damned in hell.

For me this sounds like the CC also believes, just like the Mormons (LDS), that Jesus is going to preach to the souls in purgatory (prison, to be accuarte). (?!)

I didn’t know that. Is this true?

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[JRKH]

Hi,

thanks for clarifying. I should maybe have written “Bible onlyists” instead of Protestants.

Nevertheless, I’ve also never heard of any protestant Church that would use the Deuterocanonical Scriptures in service. Maybe they are taught when studying theology or they are read by families at home, but I am quite sure that they are not read in Church.

I’ve been at a Lutheran funeral lately and there were also no verses from the Deuteros used but from the 66. (As a former Catholic I know that there are many verses in the Deuteros that could and are used by the CC at funerals!)

Yes, I am in a “Free Evangelical Church” which is something similar than a Baptist Church.
And no, we only use 66 books. Many of my brethern I’ve talked to (and who didn’t convert but were risen Evangelical) don’t even know that the Deuteros exist and when you say apocryphs they think of the gnostic apocryphal books of the NT like the Gospel according to St. Thomas.
in Christ,
Esdra

You are welcome for the clarification.
I bolded the last section because Luther’s “demotion” of the Deutero’s, seperating them from their proper place in the OT canon, started the slide that has resulted in what you say above.
It is this view that they don’t even know the deutero’s exist, shared by “many of (your) brethern”, that will make them say “praying for the dead is unbiblical” when if fact it is. To them it is not biblical because it is not included in their, 400 y.o. truncated bible canon, but to the Catholic and EO it is biblical because it IS and had always been in the Bible. Ever since Paul wrote 2 Tim and said, “All Scriptue is God Breathed…”

Peace
James

 

[Esdra]

I think the Ethiopian Orthodox actually have the largest amount of canonical books in the bible they use 81. Truth is, whether its 81, 73, or 66 the canon strongly influences how every church or ecclessial community forms its tenets and traditions. If those under the protestant tradition simply need 66 then all power to them. I like the 73 book version but I should since i’m catholic. As for the orthodox they have their own and it seems to work for them. I’d love to get an 81 book version just to compare. Of course since i don’t speak Ge’ez I’ll have to hope an english version comes along.

Hi

intersting, thank you.

That’s funny, you have just answered one of my points in the post I’ve written just a few minutes after you!° ^^ →

Here

.

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;7337727]Hi all,

in another thread a discussion arose concerning the Deuterocanonical Books.

In the following the posts.

Read, and feel free to participate in our discussion.

Esdra

My dear frend in Christ;

PLEASE understand that I am replying in Christian Charity and TRUTH…

What Protestant Bibles lack is both thee singular Truth [ONLY One per issue] and the Complete Truth Which Christ Himself assigned to HIS Catholic Church.

Eph. 2:19-20 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit"

**Eph. 4: 4 -8 **“There is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit, Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, Only One God] ONLY ***one faith, ***Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

**Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I [singular] tell you, you are Peter, [singular] and on this rock singular] I will build my [singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [singular] 19 I [God singular] will give you **[singular] **the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now a FACT and a few Questions for you

Do you find yourself doubting the very words of God? Did yo know that the New Testament gives over 100 proofs of ONLY One Church?

**2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20-21 **“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

**2 Pet.3: 16 **“peaking of this as he [PAUL] in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. “

LAST Question: Now friend wht do you entend to do with your new found truth? Ignore it and God, or live it?

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat

 

[Esdra]

You are welcome for the clarification.
I bolded the last section because Luther’s “demotion” of the Deutero’s, seperating them from their proper place in the OT canon, started the slide that has resulted in what you say above.
It is this view that they don’t even know the deutero’s exist, shared by “many of (your) brethern”, that will make them say “praying for the dead is unbiblical” when if fact it is. To them it is not biblical because it is not included in their, 400 y.o. truncated bible canon, but to the Catholic and EO it is biblical because it IS and had always been in the Bible. Ever since Paul wrote 2 Tim and said, “All Scriptue is God Breathed…”

Peace
James

On the other hand, although I was risen Catholic, I also didn’t know that praying for the dead is biblical to be honest.

It’s funny, I have studied the Holy Bible (before I found the Church I am in now) and I also read the Deuteros, but actually I must admit that I never read a single verse out of 1 or 2 Maccabees.
Later on I bought myself the Catholic Edition of the NRSV and I read the books there that are deutero to the EO but not to the CC (3 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151; and also 4 Maccabees which is apocryphal to the EOC as well); but I completely missed out 1 and 2 Maccabees.
I’ve read Tobit more than once (it’s just a nice story and particularly intersting for me because one of the patrons of my former parish was Archangel Raphael. together with Michael and Gabriel ); as well as Sirach and Wisdom; But also Judith I only read partly…
Baruch I’ve never read as well; But I’ve read the “Additions” to Daniel and Esther (the ones who were written either in Aramaic or Greek only.)

So I guess I completely missed reading the “important” deuteros. (concerning purgatory and praying for the dead. )

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

My dear frend in Christ;

PLEASE understand that I am replying in Christian Charity and TRUTH…

What Protestant Bibles lack is both thee singular Truth [ONLY One per issue] and the Complete Truth Which Christ Himself assigned to HIS Catholic Church.

Eph. 2:19-20 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit"

**Eph. 4: 4 -8 **“There is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit, Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, Only One God] ONLY ***one faith, ***Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

**Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I [singular] tell you, you are Peter, [singular] and on this rock singular] I will build my [singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [singular] 19 I [God singular] will give you **[singular] **the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now a FACT and a few Questions for you

Do you find yourself doubting the very words of God? Did yo know that the New Testament gives over 100 proofs of ONLY One Church?

**2nd. Peter Chapter One verse 20-21 **“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. “

**2 Pet.3: 16 **“peaking of this as he [PAUL] in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. “

LAST Question: Now friend wht do you entend to do with your new found truth? Ignore it and God, or live it?

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat

Hi,

I’ve started this thread because I am in general always interested in people’s opinions on a certain subject.

I mean it is not like that that I don’t have the deuteros at home (I have even the EOC deuteros at home [in English in this case]) and I also read in them.

And through this thread I’ve also learned that praying for the dead is indeed scriptural which I haven’t known before.

This is what I like the CAF so much for: I’ve learned so much new here and the discussions are nearly always very intersting to read!

No, I’m not doubting the word of God.
The story with ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC Church is worth another thread. I have my opinion on that point and I guess I’ve written about that issue too often here in CAF…

And the “understanding” and “right” interpreatition is as well worth another thread. I have also my opinion on that point and I’ve also declared that also often here in CAF.

Which new found truth? That the deuteros are worth reading and that there are basis for some Catholic believes?
Well, it’s simply another step to get to know what I’ve left (or better said will soon leave…)

in Christ,
Esdra

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;7338762]Hi,

I’ve started this thread because I am in general always interested in people’s opinions on a certain subject.

I mean it is not like that that I don’t have the deuteros at home (I have even the EOC deuteros at home [in English in this case]) and I also read in them.

And through this thread I’ve also learned that praying for the dead is indeed scriptural which I haven’t known before.

This is what I like the CAF so much for: I’ve learned so much new here and the discussions are nearly always very intersting to read!

No, I’m not doubting the word of God.
The story with ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC Church is worth another thread. I have my opinion on that point and I guess I’ve written about that issue too often here in CAF…

And the “understanding” and “right” interpreatition is as well worth another thread. I have also my opinion on that point and I’ve also declared that also often here in CAF.

Which new found truth? That the deuteros are worth reading and that there are basis for some Catholic believes?
Well, it’s simply another step to get to know what I’ve left (or better said will soon leave…)

in Christ,
Esdra

***My dear friend in Christ,

In this era of self-importance, secular humanism, and it’s wrong ONLY if I say it’s wrong, it can be very difficult the singular truth; even when it is staring is the face so to speak.

Has it ever ocurred to you that we are ONLY entitled to our own opinion when it Conforms to that of our God? The Bible Orginated within the Catholic Church. Inded the CC gives us the Bible.

When it was 100% written, collected and codified the CC was the ONLY Church in existence. The entire Nt was written by and FOR the Catholic Community, and only after 1500 years did it have revelance to other comunions. BUT if ones undrestanding is in disagreement with the folks who wrote it and for whom it was specifically alone written; to whom it was given to by God Himself, and whom Jesus Himself warrants the truths **John 14: 16-17; John 17:14-19]; ***then these new commers are in GRAVE error.

These are histortical facts.

BECAUSE ONE “CAN” HAS NEVER BEEN PRMISSION THAT ONE SHOULD.

Applying ones own transltions is calling GOD"S TRUTH into judgment. Is that what you really ought to b doing?

God Bless,
Pat**

 

[JRKH]

Hi

first of all, you remind me of the Mormons who claim to have the “fulness of the gospel”!

Except the fullness I refer to has been there continuously from the beginning. No one had to wait for some guy to dig it up on his farm in some 1800+ years after the fact.

Secondly, if you consider the LXX to be the “fulness of the gospel” no single denomination has that* (except maybe some Oriental Orthodox. I am not too sure about their Canon! - Although, as far as I know, they have a lot of apocryphs who are not even in the LXX) *because even the EO Church lacks some of the books of the LXX. (as I have stated above in this thread).

Actually I did not say that I consider the LXX to be the fullness of truth so you are building a response on something I never claimed.
However, what your examples DO show is that niether the Eastern Church or the Western Church ever clung to the “hebrew” OT. Not until the Reformation and after were portions of the previously accepted OT texts removed. So for 1500 years, from the time of Paul until the reformation, at least some of the deutero’s were included in the sacred texts. So when Paul says “All Scripture is God breathed…” in a letter to the bishop of a Gentile Greek community, was he refering to the Hebrew only texts?

The Bereans, by the way, probably **did **have “the fulness of the gospel” (together with the “oral tradition” concerning Christ from the Apostles) because I suppose that they used the whole LXX.

Precisely which is yet another point for rejecting the idea of the 66 book canon.

Why did the CC in their counsil to fix the Canon “cross out” the missing books from the LXX? I am sure there are also some very good and important parts in it, just like in the deuteros!

Another very good, though involved question.
On a lot of levels I cannot answer your question for the source documents just are not there as to why this book was kept and that book was left out.
But one thing to consider is that the Church, in compiling the Bible, was not compiling a “textbook” to replace the Church as Christ’s authoritative representative on earth. Many protestant churches seem to hold to the idea that “The authoritative Church” was needed up until the canon was fixed and after that we only needed the bible. (I know, I’m generalizing again…)
My understanding is that one big reason for compiling the canon was to provide a universal text for use in the liturgy. Those that were included were used in the mass. This did not relegate everything else to the scrap heap. The Church, by virtue of her authority, Traditions, succussion from the apostles etc, still could and did use the various “extrabiblical texts”, both OT and NT, in study and in formulating deeper understandings of God’s revelation.
Perhaps others can provide more info on this for you or links to appropriate articles.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi,

in your link above I found the following sentences:

For me this sounds like the CC also believes, just like the Mormons (LDS), that Jesus is going to preach to the souls in purgatory (prison, to be accuarte). (?!)

I didn’t know that. Is this true?

in Christ,
Esdra

I know of no specific teachings on whether Christ will “preach” to the souls in purgatory, but since the purpose of purgatory is the “purgation” of our sins and faults, preparatory to entering into the beatific vision, I see no reason why Christ preaching to them might NOT be a part of it.

Peace
James

 

[Esdra]

***My dear friend in Christ,

In this era of self-importance, secular humanism, and it’s wrong ONLY if I say it’s wrong, it can be very difficult the singular truth; even when it is staring is the face so to speak.

Has it ever ocurred to you that we are ONLY entitled to our own opinion when it Conforms to that of our God? The Bible Orginated within the Catholic Church. Inded the CC gives us the Bible.

When it was 100% written, collected and codified the CC was the ONLY Church in existence. The entire Nt was written by and FOR the Catholic Community, and only after 1500 years did it have revelance to other comunions. BUT if ones undrestanding is in disagreement with the folks who wrote it and for whom it was specifically alone written; to whom it was given to by God Himself, and whom Jesus Himself warrants the truths **John 14: 16-17; John 17:14-19]; *****then these new commers are in GRAVE error.

These are histortical facts.

BECAUSE ONE “CAN” HAS NEVER BEEN PRMISSION THAT ONE SHOULD.

Applying ones own transltions is calling GOD"S TRUTH into judgment. Is that what you really ought to b doing?

God Bless,
Pat

Hi

I don’t really understand your question.
What should be bad if you translate the Bible from the original languages into a modern language?
The protestants have done some very good translations indeed, both in English and in German! Especially some “literal” translations which are very good in my opinion, like the New American Standard Bible or the Elberfelder Bible (German) or a “freer” one like the Gute Nachricht Bibel (“Good News Bible”) from the Lutheran Evangelical Church in Germany. - They even used for translating the deuteros many texts from Qumran!

I have always wanted to ask why some of you Catholics (I’ve read that somewhen here in CAF) give so much credit to the Douay Reims, which is a translation of the Vulgate, which is of course in Latin?
I don’t really get it! In the meantime we have so many resources of the original languages (considering for example the texts from Qumran) and I would say it is more reliable (as I am studying Translation Studies) to translate from the original texts than from a translation.
I know that St. Jerome maybe used for his Vulgate older manuscripts we might not have know, but as I have said before: Isn’t it better in General to translate from the original languages?

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Except the fullness I refer to has been there continuously from the beginning. No one had to wait for some guy to dig it up on his farm in some 1800+ years after the fact.

Yeah, I know the claim of the Mormons in this respect is riduculous.
'Though I must admit that I value great parts of the BoM. The teachings are very protestant, even fundamental evangelical sometimes, and I often wish that it would say so in the Bible because sometimes that would be really practical for discusssions (for example the idea that children don’t need baptism).

Actually I did not say that I consider the LXX to be the fullness of truth so you are building a response on something I never claimed.
However, what your examples DO show is that niether the Eastern Church or the Western Church ever clung to the “hebrew” OT. Not until the Reformation and after were portions of the previously accepted OT texts removed. So for 1500 years, from the time of Paul until the reformation, at least some of the deutero’s were included in the sacred texts. So when Paul says “All Scripture is God breathed…” in a letter to the bishop of a Gentile Greek community, was he refering to the Hebrew only texts?

Yes, they (CC and the Orthodox Churches) never did and never will do, I admit that. However, for me, if you want to talk about the “fulness of the gospel”, that would be the entire LXX. I guess I’ll buy it ones. The Lutheran Evangelical Church in Germany has published a (scientific) translation of the entire septuagint lately. I guess I’ll buy that for Christmas (for myself)! [By the way: this is the first time that the whole LXX was translated into German!]

Precisely which is yet another point for rejecting the idea of the 66 book canon.

I am not rejecting the Catholic Canon of the Bible. Would I otherwise be so interested in them and even read a great part of them? However, my brethern do (reject)… But that’s another story. I’ve never been a person who sticks firmly to one believe-system (neither when I was a Catholic, nor now, as I am a “Baptist”). I guess I’ll always be different.

Another very good, though involved question.
On a lot of levels I cannot answer your question for the source documents just are not there as to why this book was kept and that book was left out.
But one thing to consider is that the Church, in compiling the Bible, was not compiling a “textbook” to replace the Church as Christ’s authoritative representative on earth. Many protestant churches seem to hold to the idea that “The authoritative Church” was needed up until the canon was fixed and after that we only needed the bible. (I know, I’m generalizing again…)
My understanding is that one big reason for compiling the canon was to provide a universal text for use in the liturgy. Those that were included were used in the mass. This did not relegate everything else to the scrap heap. The Church, by virtue of her authority, Traditions, succussion from the apostles etc, still could and did use the various “extrabiblical texts”, both OT and NT, in study and in formulating deeper understandings of God’s revelation.
Perhaps others can provide more info on this for you or links to appropriate articles.

Yes, that would really interest me. Maybe this is even worth another thread of its own?

Peace
James

Pax vobiscum,
Esdra

 

[Esdra]

I know of no specific teachings on whether Christ will “preach” to the souls in purgatory, but since the purpose of purgatory is the “purgation” of our sins and faults, preparatory to entering into the beatific vision, I see no reason why Christ preaching to them might NOT be a part of it.

Peace
James

Yeah, maybe.
Funny, this is another part in Catholicism where there is a “maybe”. Another would be if Catholics go to heaven.
I’ve never understood that either (also read that lately here in CAF) - why shouldn’t you go to heaven when you believe in Jesus? He even said we would… (Jn 11:35-36; Jn 12:46; Jn 1:12-13)

Esdra

 

[JRKH]

Yeah, I know the claim of the Mormons in this respect is riduculous.
'Though I must admit that I value great parts of the BoM. The teachings are very protestant, even fundamental evangelical sometimes, and I often wish that it would say so in the Bible because sometimes that would be really practical for discusssions (for example the idea that children don’t need baptism).

Have you considered the possiblility that the Bible does not say this because when the Church was being founded and the various texts were being written, no one believed that children don’t need baptism?
In the Old Covenant God required Circumcision as a sign of their being his chosen people. This was generally carried out 8 days after birth. Now I’m not making a direct connection between OT circumcision and NT Baptism, but it does show that God is perfectly comfortable with the parents making a “religious” decision for an infant who cannot speak for themselves.

Yes, they (CC and the Orthodox Churches) never did and never will do, I admit that. However, for me, if you want to talk about the “fulness of the gospel”, that would be the entire LXX. I guess I’ll buy it ones. The Lutheran Evangelical Church in Germany has published a (scientific) translation of the entire septuagint lately. I guess I’ll buy that for Christmas (for myself)! [By the way: this is the first time that the whole LXX was translated into German!]

Actually the "fullness of the Gospel (good news) could be distilled to a very few lines, or perhaps a single Gospel. Once one comes to believe that Christ died and rose and is teh Son of God, Jesus himself distilled everything else into two commandments in Mt 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, " YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
So the totality of the Law and the Prophets are contained in the “Law of Love”. Everything else is “supporting evidence” so to speak.
I’m glad that you are interested enough, (and a bit envious that you have the time and energy) to delve into this. I actually believe that it will strengthen you and eventually will lead you home to the Catholic Church.
A very prominant and brilliant Anglican Churchman by the name of John Newman wrote a famous “soundbite” that says, “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant”. He converted to Catholicism, rose to the rank of Cardinal and is now, Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman. If you haven’t read any of his stuff you might want to consider it.

I am not rejecting the Catholic Canon of the Bible. Would I otherwise be so interested in them and even read a great part of them? However, my brethern do (reject)… But that’s another story. I’ve never been a person who sticks firmly to one believe-system (neither when I was a Catholic, nor now, as I am a “Baptist”). I guess I’ll always be different.
Yes, I know that you are not, but protestantism as a whole does. My comments are not directed at you personally, but at the general view that accepts only the 66 book bible. Strange as it may seem, this is something that worked to keep me from “going protestant” during my time away from The Church.
Those who hold up the banner of, “The Bible is God’s Word” and “The Bible says (at the end of revelation) don’t add or subtract from this book”, and “Everything you need is in The Bible” etc come from a tradition that, early on, changed this very Volume that they place so much emphasis on.

Esdra, I know that you are on your way out of The Church. Frankly this saddens me as I’m sure you’ll understand. In talking about these things I can do little more than offer my own experiences and understandings, as enlightend by the Spirit, to perhaps help you understand what you might be leaving behind. To possibly avoid the mistakes that this “prodigal son” made on his sojourn.

I know that you are drawn to this other community for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the “community” atmosphere and their zealousness for Christ and the Word. All of this is to the good and makes me believe that maybe God does want you there for a time. For the Catholic Church needs more of this, more zeal, more outreach, even more “charsmatic” joy. When you return to The Church (and I believe you will) god will have prepared you to bring the best of these things with you. Converts and reverts are a great joy and help in “quickening” the pulse of Holy Mother Church.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yeah, maybe.
Funny, this is another part in Catholicism where there is a “maybe”. Another would be if Catholics go to heaven.
I’ve never understood that either (also read that lately here in CAF) - why shouldn’t you go to heaven when you believe in Jesus? He even said we would… (Jn 11:35-36; Jn 12:46; Jn 1:12-13)

Esdra

The reason that Catholics don’t declare they ARE going to heaven is because we do not wish to be guilty of the sin of Pride or presumption.
However, dont’ confuse this humility with dispair. Catholics are “confident” and have great “assurance” that we will be in heaven.
Part of what you are seeing is a fundemental difference in theology between the Catholic view and the Luther/Calvinist view of justification and sanctification. Many of the “faith alone” crowd see it like you say above, if you believe, you will go to heaven.
In answer I say, just examine the NT. Christ says that:

• Not everyone who crys Lord Lord will enter the kingdom. (Mt 7:21-29)
• Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. (Luke 13:24)

And Jesus is not talking to non-believers here but to his trusted “inner circle” and close disciples.
St Paul says:

• work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12)
• Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.(1 Cor 9:24)
• let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, (Heb 12:1)

Again, Paul is not talking to non-believers but to believers who are trying to stay the course and persevere that thy might attain “the prize”.
Finally, St James says:

• You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble! (Js 2:19)
• So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (Js 2:17)

These are but a few examples that tie believe and faith and action together into a composite whole. Certainly belief and faith are necessary but so is action. Confidence is likewise necessary as it flows from faith, but we must be careful not to let this confidence balloon into prideful presumption.

Peace
James

 

[WorkerPriest]

Esdra,

The value of translations is relative to the originals. One of the things we learn by comparing an ancient Greek translation of a passage of the OT with the Hebrew, is that both shed light on the other. Language is a tricky thing, as it always seeks to communicate ideas… in this case, Divine ideas. The Septuagint is a wonderful witness to what 2nd and 3rd century BC Jewish scholars thought the Hebrew OT meant, and that informs our reading of the Hebrew.

In some sense, the same is true of the Latin Vulgate. The way St. Jerome translates the original Hebrew and Greek into Latin, shows a patristic understanding of those ancient texts. Interestingly enough, St. Jerome’s critique of the Septuagint texts that could not be corrolated to a Hebrew source (i.e., the dueterocanonicals which are only found in Greek, and not in Hebrew) fueled the critiques of Erasmus and Luther in the 16th century, who were themselves doctors of Holy Scripture (at least Luther was, I’m not sure precisely all the degrees that Erasmus held, but he was the leading scholar of continental European Roman Catholicism in his day… held in high regard by the Luther and Melanchthon, and vice versa.)

Anyway, in short hand, the ancient translations are useful for getting at the nuanced understandings of the original languages, in the times and places in which they were translated… which, is helpful in gaining a catholic appreciation for historic interpretations of those same Holy Scriptures.

Peace to you.

Hi

I don’t really understand your question.
What should be bad if you translate the Bible from the original languages into a modern language?
The protestants have done some very good translations indeed, both in English and in German! Especially some “literal” translations which are very good in my opinion, like the New American Standard Bible or the Elberfelder Bible (German) or a “freer” one like the Gute Nachricht Bibel (“Good News Bible”) from the Lutheran Evangelical Church in Germany. - They even used for translating the deuteros many texts from Qumran!

I have always wanted to ask why some of you Catholics (I’ve read that somewhen here in CAF) give so much credit to the Douay Reims, which is a translation of the Vulgate, which is of course in Latin?
I don’t really get it! In the meantime we have so many resources of the original languages (considering for example the texts from Qumran) and I would say it is more reliable (as I am studying Translation Studies) to translate from the original texts than from a translation.
I know that St. Jerome maybe used for his Vulgate older manuscripts we might not have know, but as I have said before: Isn’t it better in General to translate from the original languages?

Esdra