Deuterocanonical books

[Don_Ruggero]

I think Jon is, as my grandma used to say, telling a story. The only person I can think of in terms of traditional Christianity, that you might be able to get away with saying something like that is St Jerome. Although he never said the deuterocanonical books were not Cannon. What he said was some of the Jews of the time did not accept it as Cannon. I would like to see actual evidence of this before the Reformation. Now you could argue that Orthodox Bible have a different Cannon, which is true but they seemed to have not been well defined until fairly late in the Christian history. Well after the Catholic Church adopted the Deuterocannon I happen to know a good bit about the subject, in fact I even told one of my Protestant friends that her Bible was incomplete I guess she got the abridged version. Of course throwing books out of the Bible is the only way you can justify sola scriptura.

Please. It is CANON. It is not “cannon”.

 

[JonNC]

Please. It is CANON. It is not “cannon”.

Hi Father,
With your experience in the European ecumenical dialogue, how does the difference in understanding regarding the 7 DC books play out in the Lutheran / Catholic talks?

Jon

 

[adf417]

Actually, I don’t. Each Christian responds to the practices and teachings of their traditions within the One True Church. So, you, being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, respond to the teaching of your communion. As a LCMS Lutheran, I respond to mine. Orthodox Christian communions are not likely to evolve beyond the confines of the historic Church. With less orthodox communions, I think their view of the canon is only symptomatic of a larger problem.

Jon

What makes you think it is not likely to evolve beyond the confines of the historic church? It did before and Protestantism doesn’t have a closed canon at this time. Why can’t it evolve further?

Peace!!!

 

[steve_b]

I’m not speaking for Starwarsfan2. He can speak for himself.
The term canon has differing meanings. Cardinal Cajetan, Luther opponent, also denies that the DC books are equal to the attested books of the OT.

Did Cajetan change anything regarding the canon? Nope.
Could Cajetan change anything regarding the canon? Nope

The canon (73 books all identified by name) was established at the council of Rome by Pope Damasus I, in 382. That canon was also validated at local councils of Hippo and Carthage, and the ecumenical councils of Florence, and Trent.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D

Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here**:** Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books *, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of ***the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.

From Jurgens “Faith of the Fathers”, scroll to pg 406 for this quote

When you see an OT book name above that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/
For example “Osee” = Hosea
J:

Prior to Trent, even Cardinals had the Christian liberty to count them “out of the canonical books”. I believe that Luther’s and Cajetan’s views on this subject were similar.

That canon was not up to personal interpretation. Who told you it WAS up to personal interpretation?

Did Florence change that canon from 382? Nope
Did Trent change that canon from 382? Nope

Luther is considered the father of Protestantism. “Apocrypha” as Luther said is not scripture. That’s why he put 7 OT books in his apocrypha status. So guess what, Protestant bibles today don’t even include the apocrypha in their bibles anymore. To THEM, why include ANY non biblical book, in the bible?

 

[steve_b]

They are in* luthers works vol 55*

Also of Judith he called it a book written by a prophet in its 1534 preface .

For ease, could you be more specific on your reference. iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-misc-refink

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13509477]Did Cajetan change anything regarding the canon? Nope.
Could Cajetan change anything regarding the canon? Nope

The canon (73 books all identified by name) was established at the council of Rome by Pope Damasus I, in 382. That canon was also validated at local councils of Hippo and Carthage, and the ecumenical councils of Florence, and Trent.

Did Luther change anything regarding the canon? If your DRV (which I like, btw) has 73 books, then for you, he didn’t change anything, did he?
The council at Rome was not an Ecumenical Council. It was a local synod, not binding on the universal Church.

Did Florence change that canon from 382? Nope
Did Trent change that canon from 382? Nope

And for the CC, the 73 book canon is still in place.

Luther is considered the father of Protestantism. “Apocrypha” as Luther said is not scripture. That’s why he put 7 OT books in his apocrypha status. So guess what, Protestant bibles today don’t even include the apocrypha in their bibles anymore. To THEM, why include ANY non biblical book, in the bible?

Right on all counts. Luther practiced the same Christian liberty prior to Trent that other Catholics, including a Cardinal practiced, and many others practiced all the way back to Eusebius. And in doing so, he maintained the catholic heritage of including all seven of the books, plus the additional book of the Prayer of Manasseh. He was in his perfect liberty hold the views he held, just like Cardinal Cajetan did. It is, at best, inconsistent to claim otherwise.
Now, what other Christian communions do is within the privilege. Clearly, virtually all of them are not historically connected with Lutheranism. Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabaptists, the Anglicans, none of them were once with Luther. So, if you disapprove of their canons, go talk to them Steve.
As for Lutherans, I don’t need your help to criticize the fact that American Lutherans have been lazy is using English Bibles that exclude the DC books and the Prayer of Manasseh. Luther, Chemnitz, and the others would not have approved, and neither do I. Luther’s Die Bibel is still the Bible of choice among Lutherans in Germany. The recent release of the “Apocrypha” by the LCMS is stunningly beautiful, and it is criminal that American Lutherans have ignored these wonderful parts of scripture for this long.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

For ease, could you be more specific on your reference. iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html#sw-misc-refink

If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Jeremiah and Ezra. For these show how Jerusalem and the whole country were destroyed, and were thereafter laboriously rebuilt during the time of the monarchy of the Persians who occupied the land.

Against this the first chapter of Judith claims that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was the first one to set about conquering this territory; it creates the impression that these events took place before the captivity of the Jews, and before the rise of the Persian monarchy. Philo, on the contrary, says that they happened after the release and return of the Jews from Babylon under King Ahasuerus, at which time the Jews had rebuilt neither the temple nor Jerusalem, and had no government. Thus as to both time and name, error and doubt are still present, so that I cannot reconcile [the accounts] at all.

Some people think this is not an account of historical events [Geschichte] but rather a beautiful religious fiction [Gedicht] by a holy and ingenious man who wanted to sketch and depict therein the fortunes of the whole Jewish people and the victory God always miraculously granted them over all their enemies. This would be similar to the way Solomon in his Song poetizes and sings of a bride, vet means thereby not some specific person or event but the whole people of Israel. St. John, in his Apocalypse, and Daniel likewise sketch many pictures and beasts; yet these pertain not to specific persons but to the totality of Christian churches and [to the various] empires. And Christ our Lord himself likes to make use of parables and fictions like this in the gospel. He compares the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens [Matt. 25:1–13], or to a merchant and pearls [Matt. 13:45], a baker woman [Matt. 13:33], a grain of mustard seed [Matt. 13:31–32], or to fishermen and nets [Matt. 13:47–49], or to shepherds and sheep [Matt. 18:12–14], and the like.

Such an interpretation strikes my fancy, and I think that the poet deliberately and painstakingly inserted the errors of time and name in order to remind the reader that the book should be taken and understood as that kind of a sacred, religious, composition.

Now the names fit into this sort of an interpretation extraordinarily well. Judith means Judea [The Latin word Judaea used here can mean either a Jewish woman (Jewess) or the land of Judah. Luther uses it in the latter sense. The Hebrew Yehudith means simply “Jewess” and then by allegory the Jewish people. It should be noted, however, that it is the personal name of Esau’s wife who was not a Jew but a Hittite (Gen 26:34)], (that is) the Jewish people. She is a chaste and holy widow; that is, God’s people is always a forsaken widow who is nevertheless chaste and holy, remaining pure and holy in the Word of God and in the true faith, mortifying herself and praying. Holofernes means worldly leader or governor, a heathen, godless, or un-Christian lord or prince—as all enemies of the Jewish people are. Bethulia (a city nobody knows) means a virgin [Luther connects the name of the city with the Hebrew bethulah, meaning virgin], indicating that at that time the believing and devout Jews were the pure virgin, free from idolatry and unbelief, as described in Isaiah [37:22] and Jeremiah [14:17; 18:13; 31:4], which is also why they remained unconquerable, though they were in distress.

It may even be that in those days they dramatized literature like this, Just as among us the Passion and other sacred stories are performed. In a common presentation or play they conceivably wanted to teach their people and youth to trust God, to be righteous, and to hope in God for all help and comfort, in every need, against all enemies, etc.
**
Therefore this is a fine, good, holy, useful book, well worth reading by us Christians. For the words spoken by the persons in it should be understood as though they were uttered in the Holy Spirit by a spiritual, holy poet or prophet who, in presenting such persons in his play, preaches to us through them.** Next after Judith, therefore [Luther’s ordering of the apocryphal books is his own. It does not follow the sequence in which they appeared either in the Vulgate or in the Septuagint where they were interspersed among the canonical books in positions which varied with the different manuscripts. In the older German Bibles, Judith had followed Tobit and preceded Esther; Wisdom had followed Song of Solomon and preceded Ecclesiasticus. Reu, Luther’s German Bible, p. 36.], like a song following a play, belongs the Wisdom of Philo *, a work which denounces tyrants and praises the help which God bestows on his people. The song [that follows] may well be called an illustration of this book [of Judith]. *
Luther’s Works Vol. 35, III-339

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/luther-and-the-book-of-judith/

 

[steve_b]

Did Luther change anything regarding the canon?

Yes

Technically for discussion purposes we talk about 7 books, but actually it’s also 2 additional works in Luther’s apocrypha #[12 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13503726&postcount=12)

Das Buch Judith Das Buch Jesus Syrach Das ander Buch Maccabeorum
Die Weisheit Salomonis Der Prophet Baruch Stücke in Esther
Das Buch Tobie Das erste Buch Maccabeorum Stücke in Daniel

Luther made THEM non canonical, as in non scripture by demoting them to apocryphal status.

click on the image

enominepatris.com/biblia/bilder/biblia1545.gif
J:

If your DRV (which I like, btw) has 73 books, then for you, he didn’t change anything, did he?

It’s about what those books ARE to Luther

In Luther’s bible

39 books are OT scripture
27 books are NT scripture
__
66 books in his canon

+9 Apocrypha, nice to read but **NOT scripture**

75 books

Don’t forget Luther’s quote about the apocrypha. .“books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read,”
J:

The council at Rome was not an Ecumenical Council. It was a local synod, not binding on the universal Church.

In normal circumstances that’s true.

However look at what pope Damasus said, #[24 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13509477&postcount=24)

He begins " Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun."…

• being a **decree **by pope Damasus I, for the Catholic Church
• that this collection of books is the canon of scripture.
• That makes this canon universal NOT just a local issue.

Definition: Decree

When Jerome wrote the Vulgate, (73 canonical books from the decree of pope Damasus) that was NOT a local bible. That was the bible for the Catholic Church. BTW there were no E Orthodox at this time.

Not to mention, looking forward, Florence, an ecumenical council, ratified that canon, as did Trent.
J:

And for the CC, the 73 book canon is still in place.

The CC is Our Lord’s Church that HE established on Peter. And your point?
J:

Luther practiced the same Christian liberty prior to Trent that other Catholics, including a Cardinal practiced, and many others practiced all the way back to Eusebius.

That canon was validated by Florence, an ecumenical council. There’s no license to dissent from that.

Don’t confuse liberty with license. One has liberty to do anything… including break all laws ever written. It doesn’t mean one won’t be arrested for that, or suffer the worst consequences for that liberty namely suffer hell for what they do. But they have liberty to do whatever they darn well please.
J:

And in doing so, he maintained the catholic heritage of including all seven of the books, plus the additional book of the Prayer of Manasseh.

C’mon Jon.

The Vulgate, Jerome’s work, doesn’t separate any books into apocryphal status. They are ALL canon.

Do you know how many bibles were printed in German before Luther was even a thought? Those translations followed the Vulgate. They had the same 73 canonical books in them that the Vulgate has
J:

He was in his perfect liberty hold the views he held, just like Cardinal Cajetan did. It is, at best, inconsistent to claim otherwise.

Again, as I said, liberty is not without consequences.

Luther was already excommunicated from the Catholic Church and condemned as a heretic at this point. But yes he had his liberty to do whatever the heck he wanted to do, and remain so till he died. That’s his liberty
J:

Now, what other Christian communions do is within the privilege. Clearly, virtually all of them are not historically connected with Lutheranism. Calvin, Zwingli, the Anabaptists, the Anglicans, none of them were once with Luther. So, if you disapprove of their canons, go talk to them Steve.

They ALL followed Luther. They put those same books in their apocrypha as well.
J:

As for Lutherans, I don’t need your help to criticize the fact that American Lutherans have been lazy is using English Bibles that exclude the DC books and the Prayer of Manasseh. Luther, Chemnitz, and the others would not have approved, and neither do I. Luther’s Die Bibel is still the Bible of choice among Lutherans in Germany. The recent release of the “Apocrypha” by the LCMS is stunningly beautiful, and it is criminal that American Lutherans have ignored these wonderful parts of scripture for this long.

Jon

If those books are scripture then they aren’t Apocrypha

 

[adamhovey1988]

Please. It is CANON. It is not “cannon”.

Well apologies for my voice to text not being perfect. I’m going to go to some of your posts and correct all your grammar and your spelling and see how you like it. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand and you know it. I feel as though you are being rude and condescending to me I know how to spell it I choose to use voice to text because it is more convenient and I do not have internet connection at home other than on my cell phone. So please pardon me for being a little frustrated when you don’t know the situation

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Yes

Technically for discussion purposes we talk about 7 books, but actually it’s also 2 additional works in Luther’s apocrypha #[12 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13503726&postcount=12)

Das Buch Judith Das Buch Jesus Syrach Das ander Buch Maccabeorum
Die Weisheit Salomonis Der Prophet Baruch Stücke in Esther
Das Buch Tobie Das erste Buch Maccabeorum Stücke in Daniel

Luther made THEM non canonical, as in non scripture by demoting them to apocryphal status.

click on the image

enominepatris.com/biblia/bilder/biblia1545.gif

It’s about what those books ARE to Luther

In Luther’s bible

39 books are OT scripture
27 books are NT scripture
__
66 books in his canon

+9 Apocrypha, nice to read but **NOT scripture**

75 books

Don’t forget Luther’s quote about the apocrypha. .“books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read,”

In normal circumstances that’s true.

However look at what pope Damasus said, #[24 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13509477&postcount=24)

He begins " Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun."…

• being a **decree **by pope Damasus I, for the Catholic Church
• that this collection of books is the canon of scripture.
• That makes this canon universal NOT just a local issue.

Definition: Decree

When Jerome wrote the Vulgate, (73 canonical books from the decree of pope Damasus) that was NOT a local bible. That was the bible for the Catholic Church. BTW there were no E Orthodox at this time.

Not to mention, looking forward, Florence, an ecumenical council, ratified that canon, as did Trent.

The CC is Our Lord’s Church that HE established on Peter. And your point?

That canon was validated by Florence, an ecumenical council. There’s no license to dissent from that.

Don’t confuse liberty with license. One has liberty to do anything… including break all laws ever written. It doesn’t mean one won’t be arrested for that, or suffer the worst consequences for that liberty namely suffer hell for what they do. But they have liberty to do whatever they darn well please.

C’mon Jon.

The Vulgate, Jerome’s work, doesn’t separate any books into apocryphal status. They are ALL canon.

Do you know how many bibles were printed in German before Luther was even a thought? Those translations followed the Vulgate. They had the same 73 canonical books in them that the Vulgate has

Again, as I said, liberty is not without consequences.

Luther was already excommunicated from the Catholic Church and condemned as a heretic at this point. But yes he had his liberty to do whatever the heck he wanted to do, and remain so till he died. That’s his liberty

They ALL followed Luther. They put those same books in their apocrypha as well.

If those books are scripture then they aren’t Apocrypha

1. The pope has no right to create doctrine out of thin air
2. Deuterocanonical = Apocryphal( and vis versa) NOT apocryphal = non canonical
3. Florence is not ecumenical
4. Neither is Trent
5. The Reformation churches didn’t all follow Luther as Anglo - Catholics hold to 73 books
6. Councils of Rome and Carthage are local councils i.e. Not binding on the Catholic Church .7. Luthers Liberty was not license ( amazing how much you twist history)
7. Eighteen German bibles before Luther if I’m not mistaken , although many argue they were stilted ( a subject for another day )

Keep the faith Steve , Starwars

 

[steve_b]

1. The pope has no right to create doctrine out of thin air

never said he does
S:

1. Deuterocanonical = Apocryphal( and vis versa) NOT apocryphal = non canonical

Nope!
S:

1. Florence is not ecumenical

Wrong
S:

1. Neither is Trent

Wrong
S:

1. The Reformation churches didn’t all follow Luther as Anglo - Catholics hold to 73 books

The KJV is a Protestant translation. Show me where a KJV has 73 canonical books (none of the books apocryphal) in their translation.
S:

1. Councils of Rome and Carthage are local councils i.e. Not binding on the Catholic Church .

Go back and look at my answer. #30
S:

1. Luthers Liberty was not license ( amazing how much you twist history)

Go back and look at my answer… #30
S:

1. Eighteen German bibles before Luther if I’m not mistaken ,

Bravo you got one right
S:

Keep the faith Steve , Starwars

I will

 

[Starwarsfan2]

never said he does

Nope!

Wrong

Wrong

The KJV is a Protestant translation. Show me where a KJV has 73 canonical books (none of the books apocryphal) in their translation.

Go back and look at my answer. #30

Go back and look at my answer… #30

Bravo you got one right

I will

1. Only the first 4-7 councils are considered ecumenical by the majority of Christians, so yes neither Trent nor Florence are ecumenical
   2.not sure what your getting at with the kjv reference
   3.i did and neither answer seemed right
   4.ones better than nothing

 

[Don_Ruggero]

JonNC, I thank you for your posts which are well thought out and cogently presented. I would love to have had you in my classroom.

Beyond that, though, I find many discussions in this realm to be lacking the mindset and the approach of today’s theologians in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue. Building theological consensus and overcoming the ordeals of the past – as opposed to people arguing – has occupied me and my life as a theologian. Conversations employing language and concepts that have been long abandoned hold no interest for me. Rather, it is the language and the methodology of Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint that should serve as a model for all Catholics and properly orients dialogue and discussions today.

The foundations for various comments I have read are using language and paradigms that thankfully have been moved beyond by the theological community…but also by the Successor of Peter is his approach to ecumenism and by the dicasteries of the Holy See which assist the Holy Father in his service and ministry to the people of God.

I have always been glad, on the one hand, to talk about what has been the work and passion of a lifetime…but not when it is to no real purpose.

I will add, as a personal comment, that my appreciation for Luther and his struggles, pastorally and theologically, certainly grew over the decades of working on these issues. I look forward, please God, to participating in the joint commemoration of the 500th anniversary in 2017 and I hope that the occasion advances further our journey together “From Conflict to Communion”. It is historic that this will indeed by a joint commemoration…thanks be to God.

We are grateful for the contributions of theologians like Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Koch who subscribed to From Conflict to Communion, published by the Holy See as well as their Lutheran partners in the dialogue, and I leave you with this selection from that document, as I think they are the most salient contribution I can make to this thread.

*232. Sixteenth-century divisions were rooted in different understandings of the truth of the Christian faith and were particularly contentious since salvation was seen to be at stake. On both sides, persons held theological convictions that they could not abandon. One must not blame someone for following his or her conscience when it is formed by the Word of God and has reached its judgments after serious deliberation with others.

1. How theologians presented their theological convictions in the battle for public opinion is quite another matter. In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago. *

 

[steve_b]

1. Only the first 4-7 councils are considered ecumenical by the majority of Christians, so yes neither Trent nor Florence are ecumenical

wrong
S:

2.not sure what your getting at with the kjv reference

Anglicans sometimes call themselves “anglo catholic”. They aren’t Catholic. They are Protestants. That’s the reference to the KJV

Only those Anglicans that have come back in union with the Catholic Church are Catholic. They will no doubt use a Catholic bible.
S:

3.i did and neither answer seemed right

It was right
S:

4.ones better than nothing

:doh2:

 

[Starwarsfan2]

1. Only the first 4-7 councils are considered ecumenical by the majority of Christians, so yes neither Trent nor Florence are ecumenical
   2.not sure what your getting at with the kjv reference
   3.i did and neither answer seemed right
   4.ones better than nothing

By the majority of Christian Churches , sorry

 

[adf417]

By the majority of Christian Churches , sorry

Where do the demographics stand on this say, before the reformation? Can the criteria really be fluid assuming your numbers of Protestant churches actually out number Catholic churches.

Peace!!!

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Where do the demographics stand on this say, before the reformation? Can the criteria really be fluid assuming your numbers of Protestant churches actually out number Catholic churches.

Peace!!!

Wasn’t saying demographically , I was making the point that only Roman Catholics accept 21 councils , hence number of churches , however combine the numbers of the EO and the Reformation churches then yes the majority of Christians support at most seven councils

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wasn’t saying demographically , I was making the point that only Roman Catholics accept 21 councils , hence number of churches , however combine the numbers of the EO and the Reformation churches then yes the majority of Christians support at most seven councils

My great dream, Starwarsfan2 and JonNC, is that we will see something exceptional happen for the impending anniversary of Nicaea. It will already be a holy year of jubilee. May the Lord in His love and mercy renew the Church and prepare her for her future mission as humanity advances through the 21st century to beyond.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Anglicans sometimes call themselves “anglo catholic”. They aren’t Catholic. They are Protestants. That’s the reference to the KJV

Only those Anglicans that have come back in union with the Catholic Church are Catholic. They will no doubt use a Catholic bible.

Why would you not address an Anglo-Catholic as “Anglo-Catholic”? Would you address someone who is Orthodox as “Heterodox”? The Polish National Catholic Church is not in communion with Rome, but its sacraments are valid. They will happily tell you they are not Roman Catholic but they are certainly an proudly Polish National Catholics. They are an interesting group and a half, and an interesting off-shoot from the tree for theological dialogue.

With notable exceptions, “those Anglicans” now in full communion with Rome knew and referred to themselves as Anglo-Catholics and now as Roman Catholics of the Anglican Use. It is a title that speaks to a proper place in a broad spectrum. An their love for the KJV will be undiminished.

 

[JonNC]

My great dream, Starwarsfan2 and JonNC, is that we will see something exceptional happen for the impending anniversary of Nicaea. It will already be a holy year of jubilee. May the Lord in His love and mercy renew the Church and prepare her for her future mission as humanity advances through the 21st century to beyond.

I join my prayers with yours, Father.

Jon