Question For Protestants (if any are here)

[MichaelP3]

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Trinity-James-R-White/dp/1556617259

You may find this interesting

 

[JonNC]

The more I read on Catholicism, the more inclined I am to want to convert. I have decided to attend Mass for the first time, but am very nervous. I will more than likely attend alone since my husband works and he is not as open to the idea as I am.

I would strongly encourage you to seek out a priest /RCIA class to be sure. CAF used to be a good place for information, but now it is too combative.

I did not know that there are more books in the Catholic Bible
not always. Luther’s translation contains 74 books
I did not know that Martin Luther removed anything

he didn’t

I was never told anything ever about the Saints
poor education/catechesis is a problem in many traditions
I was always taught to pray only to God
There are different types of prayer. “I pray you…” simply means I ask or even beg

I did not know that the Catholic Church is the one true church
it is certainly part of it

 

[brianahatcher07]

I was raised Presbyterian (PCA) . M entire family is non Catholic. I don’t understand Catholic sacraments, venerating statues, and the Eucharist. I have never been to a Mass. I have never been invited either. I am here because of a crisis of faith I guess. The wreck the Prosperity gospel has made on my generation and on my loved ones, has infuriated me.

 

[lilypadrees]

I did not know that there are more books in the Catholic Bible
I did not know that Martin Luther removed anything
I was never told anything ever about the Saints
I was always taught to pray only to God
I did not know that the Catholic Church is the one true church

Catholics have the complete Bible. Protestants call the additional books the Apocrypha. The true name is the Deuterocanon.

Yes, Martin Luther removed 7 books and parts of 2 others. He is also responsible for adding the word “alone” to faith. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “saved by faith alone.”

If you get EWTN, you will find plenty of programming about the Saints. Yesterday Pope Francis was visiting San Giovanni Rotondo which is where Saint Padre Pio lived.

You might like this video.

Padre Pio: Pietrelcina, San Giovanni Rotondo, past and present - VIDEO - Vatican News

Catholics pray to God.

What you are thinking of tho is the Rosary and what many Protestants believe is our worship of the Virgin Mary. Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary. We do not view her as a goddess. She is the mother of Jesus and our spiritual mother.

When we pray the Rosary (which you will find in Scripture), we meditate on the lives of Jesus and Mary (yes, you find her mentioned in several of the Mysteries). We ask her to pray with us and for us just as we would ask our own mothers and others.

Yes, the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. Jesus is the Founder of the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

Catholics have the complete Bible. Protestants call the additional books the Apocrypha. The true name is the Deuterocanon.

Are you sure the EO don’t actually have the complete Bible?

Yes, Martin Luther removed 7 books and parts of 2 others. He is also responsible for adding the word “alone” to faith. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “saved by faith alone.”

Nope. His translation has 74 books. I have a copy as it is still in print.
His use of the word Allein responds to a translation to German. It isn’t in any English Bible that I know of because it isn’t needed in English, dispelling the myth he used it to change the meaning.

 

[lilypadrees]

I’m sure.

And it doesn’t matter what his translation has. He removed 7 books and parts of two others from the Holy Bible. If he hadn’t, there wouldn’t be a Protestant Bible.

 

[JonNC]

And it doesn’t matter what his translation has. He removed 7 books and parts of two others from the Holy Bible. If he hadn’t, there wouldn’t be a Protestant Bible.

Patently and historically false. He included them all plus the Prayer of Manasseh. In fact, he wrote commentaries for them.

There is no such thing as a Protestant Bible. That said, it was the English who removed the DC books, not Luther. Even the original version of the KJV had them all. The one my parish uses every Sunday has them all because they are read from during the year at mass.

 

[thecommongentry]

Happy Sunday, @Jill!
(sorry for being late and that this might be your umptenth response to this but just wanted to share some resources that I’ve discovered that could help you feel more comfortable… you might have been directed to these already but I wanted to give you a peek* into my personal experience)

You remind me alot of a friend who’s a very devout Faith-Baptist but started out his life in the Mennonite Church.

He and I would discuss about faith – yet in very generic Christian terms – and he was very blind-sided to find out that I was Catholic and even brought up his thoughts that how Catholics view their relationship with Christ, especially in how we view Communion/The Eucharist/the reception of the Body and Bloody i.e. “if a person truly believes that’s the body and blood of Christ then they’re just a magical cannibal.”

Albeit, I’ve always been a devout Catholic – alter-server, Confirmed of my own free-will, active participant in Faith Formation and minister of the Liturgy – but since knowing my friend, I’ve dived deeper into my faith, in particularly in the apologetic aspect.

When I bring friends who aren’t Catholic, I make sure to let them know about the routines before Mass and a follow-up/clarification of what went down and why afterwards. But I always make sure to point out the Missalette at the pew. Even for Catholics who attend Mass, the missalette helps a lot. Not just for the responses of the congregation but also for what the priest and/or deacon is saying.

There’s also this book I came across, The How-To Book of the Mass: Everything You Need to Know but No One Ever Taught You by Micheal Dubriel. The edition I encountered is the neon green one. The book gives a fair play-by-play in the reasoning behind what is said and done in addition to some connections/biblical defense to the Mass. There is another book that has a stronger biblical connection to the Mass that can help clear a few things, written by Edward Sri.

 

[thecommongentry]

(cont’d @Jill)

---

I’ve visited alot of different parishes and parochial schools, both in the United States and in Chile. And your Mass experience is severely going to change depending on the parish, the congregation and time Mass is given. In certain ways, aye, the Catholic Church is a family but it’s more about Roman being the Parent and all the parishes in the world are its sons and daughters. Aye, the fundamentals should be the same because that one son or daughter was raised under that one roof, but each son and daughter has their own personality. And for a parish, the Priest, adminsitrators, volunteers, participants, visitors help build the personality of that given parish. Even within the same parish, the time in which Mass is given (Saturday Vigil, Sunday 9am, Sunday 5pm, Sunday 3pm Spanish Mass, etc) bring in certain types of people who will affect ones experience. If you’re attending a Catholic Mass, also consider the parish and time you’re attending, because even among Catholics, feeling welcomed or The Spirit moving among the church is an ongoing issue. Feel free to visit other parishes and even visit the same parish but attend Mass at different times.

You might be surprised – in a good way – in what you find.

 

[SnowRose]

Is the missalette the same year from year or is it specific to the liturgical date? I’m considering reading up in advance. (I have never been to a Catholic mass in my life, and I’m trying to mentally adapt to either that or to the Anglicans)

 

[thecommongentry]

it is possible to read in advance. The Missalette is for the Liturgical season/segmented periods through out the year (some spans overlap from Season to Season whereas a particular time period within a given Season) for each Mass and to certain extent, the Daily and Vigil Masses.

You also have the choice of buying a Roman Missal (Daily and/or Sunday). The Sunday Missal could be complete and permanent with Years A, B, C (rotating through the years i.e. this Dec 3rd 2017-November 25th 2018 yr would be Yr B for Sunday).

But if you’re looking into getting to know the Readings (Old Test and New Test. [Acts - Revelations], Gospel, and Psalms), the source I use for the USA, is http://www.usccb.org/bible/index.cfm.

When you visit the site, you can access through the “TODAY’S READING” link or the [Calendar]. The coloring coincides with our Liturgical Calendar (ie Purple would be Lent and White would be Easter).

 

[QContinuum]

First post here, after years (millennia for the insignificant mortals here) of observing this board with interest.

Logically, Q could only be Anglican, owing to the witty commentary and excellent cross buns. More importantly, however, the Continuum does not see the Roms’ jurisdiction extending beyond their quadrant of space.

LL&P

-Q

 

[AugustTherese]

He included them all

Like he ‘included’ the table of contents? He systematically removed the Deuterocanon into a separate, non-inspired appendix for ‘useful’ reading. That is removing them from Scripture.

There is no such thing as a Protestant Bible

Right, there are Protestant Bibles, hundreds of them.

 

[JonNC]

Like he ‘included’ the table of contents? He systematically removed the Deuterocanon into a separate, non-inspired appendix for ‘useful’ reading. That is removing them from Scripture.

In other words, whether you like it or not, whether or not he included them the way you want them,he included them. They are there. In print. He then states his opinion about them, like other Catholics did before Trent. Even the confessions treat them like scripture.

Right, there are Protestant Bibles, hundreds of them.

Maybe you’re right, but I’ve never seen a Bible entitled, “The Protestant Bible “

 

[AugustTherese]

In other words, whether you like it or not, whether or not he included them the way you want them,he included them

…as non-inspired, which is removing them from Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

In other words, whether you like it or not, whether or not he included them the way you want them,he included them

…as non-inspired, which is removing them from Scripture.

So, they aren’t in the Bible anymore. That’s what removed them means.
Last I saw, they are in the DRV, aren’t they?
They’re still in his translation, aren’t they?
If he had removed them, they would be removed, wouldn’t they?

The fact is he had no power to add or remove any books, anymore the Cajetan did. Yet they both held the same OPINION about them.
And that was allowed.
But today, some Catholic apologists hold a double standard. Luther is condemned for his opinion, while others are not. We see the same thing with the anti-Judaism writings. A double standard.

 

[AugustTherese]

Having an ‘opinion’ about books of the Bible, and separating inspired books of the Bible into your own personal, non-inspired appendix is not even comparable. So, Luther kept these books in the Bible in a non-inspired category, look what resulted; 90% of Protestant translations do not even have them ‘included’ in an appendix as did Luther’s.

The fact is he had no power to add or remove any books, anymore the Cajetan did. Yet they both held the same OPINION about them

Except, Cardinal Cajetan did not separate any books into a non-inspired category as Luther did. Again, huge contrast in having a mere ‘opinion’ and tampering with inspired books of Scripture.

Luther is condemned for his opinion, while others are not.

No! Luther is condemned for tampering with Scripture and separating inspired books into a non-inspired category; that is not simply having an opinion! I have the utmost respect for you, @JonNC, and you have been most cordial with me in every discourse we have had, but it baffles me in what great lengths you go to attempt to not only defend Luther’s acts and works, but to try to compare him with Catholic works; there is no comparison, at least, inasmuch as what Luther wrote and did to the Scriptures.

 

[JonNC]

Having an ‘opinion’ about books of the Bible, and separating inspired books of the Bible into your own personal, non-inspired appendix is not even comparable. So, Luther kept these books in the Bible in a non-inspired category, look what resulted; 90% of Protestant translations do not even have them ‘included’ in an appendix as did Luther’s.

Ah, the “Lemming Principle “. None of the others could think for themselves. They blindly followed Luther.
It is amazing how they blindly followed Luther on some things, but on some really important things like Baptism and the Eucharist, they were able to shake off his hypnotic powers and reject him.

Except, Cardinal Cajetan did not separate any books into a non-inspired category as Luther did. Again, huge contrast in having a mere ‘opinion’ and tampering with inspired books of Scripture.

So, Cajetan didn’t write a translation, his opinion was the same. Again, here is the double standard.

No! Luther is condemned for tampering with Scripture and separating inspired books into a non-inspired category; that is not simply having an opinion! I have the utmost respect for you,

Not at all. There were Catholic translators who used his translation! That doesn’t sound like condemning him for the way he organized.

you have been most cordial with me in every discourse we have had, but it baffles me in what great lengths you go to attempt to not only defend Luther’s acts and works, but to try to compare him with Catholic works; there is no comparison, at least, inasmuch as what Luther wrote and did to the Scriptures.

I appreciate the compliment, but I am only defending against inaccuracies. Compared to Catholic German translations, His is still considered the most broadly accepted in the language.
I’ve often said I don’t agree with his opinion on the books, but I reject the establishment of a double standard regarding his opinion of them and that of Catholics who held the same view.

 

[AugustTherese]

They blindly followed Luther

But, ‘they’ did not follow Luther, they did the opposite. Instead of ‘including’ the Deuterocanon, ‘they’ completely left those books out of their ‘Bibles’. Luther’s initial separation served as a catalyst for the eventual altogether removal of the books by future Protestants.

So, Cajetan didn’t write a translation, his opinion was the same. Again, here is the double standard

But, Cajetan did not remove books of Scripture. We are not solely discussing opinions of Scripture held by individuals; I couldn’t care less what Cajetan, Luther, and/or Saint Jerome individually thought about what belongs in the canon of Scripture. What matters is who was docile to the Church in determining the canon, and who independently separated and removed inspired books from the inspired Scriptures.

 

[JonNC]

But, ‘they’ did not follow Luther, they did the opposite. Instead of ‘including’ the Deuterocanon, ‘they’ completely left those books out of their ‘Bibles’. Luther’s initial separation served as a catalyst for the eventual altogether removal of the books by future Protestants.

If they didn’t follow him, he wasn’t the catalyst. They were their own.

But, Cajetan did not remove books of Scripture. We are not solely discussing opinions of Scripture held by individuals;

Of course we are. If we recognize that neither had any authority to determine canonicity, but only express opinion, then we are only talking about opinion.

I couldn’t care less what Cajetan, Luther, and/or Saint Jerome individually thought about what belongs in the canon of Scripture.

I care. I care what John of Damascus thought, and Eusebius thought, what Jerome and Athanasius thought.
Knowing what the Church Fathers have thought drives what we know. It’s what the evangelicals miss.