What to do with a King James Bible

[greggy53]

Sound pretty juvenile. While talking to certain people sometimes I get the feeling we have regressed back to the 8th grade!

 

[GKC]

Have met Eisner and Gaiman. Nice folks, they were.

Have not met Chick. Likely to remain that way.

GKC

 

[jlhargus]

My daughter was given a King James Bible several years ago by a protestant who was trying to convert her.

I just found it and would like to know who I could give it to. It is not the complete Bible and I really have no need to keep it.

I would like to give it to some protestant organization, but don’t know who that would be.

It is the word of God although incomplete and I surely can’t just toss it out.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Give it to Goodwill, Volunteers of America or used book store.

 

[jlhargus]

Thank you but a poll was taken at Church and only 15% said they read ther Bible daily.

JL: ONLY 15%, I would think 15% reading EVERY DAY would be a very good average and higher than most, wheather Catholic or Protestant. As a former Protestant, non-denom bible church. I never read the bible EVERY DAY and still don’t as a Catholic. Although as a Catholic I hear the word of God read, as a norm, EVERY DAY at mass.

I have a lot of Protestant relatives and friends I could only name two who have a practice of reading the bible, EVERY DAY as a norm, for about 10 to 15 minutes. I spend a lot of time reading and studying the bible but not EVERY DAY.

 

[jlhargus]

Don’t be sorry. You are very gracious in your posts and I appreciate that for whats its worth. its hard to state what you believe and fight for it and not be villainized, lol. I won’t try to understand anything except for scripture then. That way there is no misunderstanding. John 6:47 That’s it. it’s that simple! So my point is if that’s the end goal, as I assume most people are seeking salvation, why would you need anything else? You could be saved by believing in the Word, trusting Christ as Savior, and accepting the free gift of eternal salvation. So I say if you truly trust Christ, walk away from the CC. Walk away from all the traditions, trust Christ as your Savior, and see if he fulfills his promise that you will have eternal life. Nowhere after John 6:47 does it say- “and go to confessional” or “and take part in Eucharist” or “attend Mass”. So why go through all that when all of that seems to add on to the plan of salvation? it seems to me that by doing all that you are trying to “ensure” salvation by works, no? In Luke 11 isn’t Jesus blasting traditions of men? Please explain, if you wish, how I’m misunderstanding what more you need than belief on the Son of God? Because if that’s essentially what you’re saying the CC believes on for salvation, then explain why the Eucharist is necessary for anyone, at any time, please.

JL: Ariel, I started to make a quick reply, but read your remarks again. The second time I noticed several remarks I would like to answer for you in more detail. I don’t have time right now hopefully tomorrow I will post or Friday at lest.

 

[Padrej]

JL: ONLY 15%, I would think 15% reading EVERY DAY would be a very good average and higher than most, wheather Catholic or Protestant. As a former Protestant, non-denom bible church. I never read the bible EVERY DAY and still don’t as a Catholic. Although as a Catholic I hear the word of God read, as a norm, EVERY DAY at mass.

I have a lot of Protestant relatives and friends I could only name two who have a practice of reading the bible, EVERY DAY as a norm, for about 10 to 15 minutes. I spend a lot of time reading and studying the bible but not EVERY DAY.

I thought you might find this article of interest:
healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/less-than-10-of-professed-christians-have-read-the-entire-bible/

It speaks that less than 10% of professed Christians have ever read the ENTIRE Bible. Also another good point to mention in this link.
“Statistical research shows that less than 10% of professing Christians have
ever read the entire Bible. The church as a whole is Biblically illiterate!
From time to time in my Devotional I will give my opinion on an issue and I
am very careful to always let you know when it is Bill Keller’s opinion.
Most of the time I just let God’s words speak for themselves. There is not
one issue, one thing we deal with in everyday life that is not covered in
the Bible.”

The reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or groups like them) get as far as they do is they play to the fact that most Christians do not know that much about the Bible and can not spot a misquote or a verse taken out of context.
I must confess there are times that I do not read my Bible EVERY day, and it is those times that I must confess that my spiritual life suffers. As Paul says, “the things I want to do I find that I do not do, and the things I do not want to do I find myself doing.” Thank God for the Grace and forgiveness that He bestows on us all.

God Bless you and forgive the intrusion into your argument/discussion but I ran by this and it seemed germane to the topic.
PadreJ

 

[greggy53]

The reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or groups like them) get as far as they do is they play to the fact that most Christians do not know that much about the Bible and can not spot a misquote or a verse taken out of context.
I must confess there are times that I do not read my Bible EVERY day, and it is those times that I must confess that my spiritual life suffers. As Paul says, “the things I want to do I find that I do not do, and the things I do not want to do I find myself doing.” Thank God for the Grace and forgiveness that He bestows on us all.
God Bless you and forgive the intrusion into your argument/discussion but I ran by this and it seemed germane to the topic.
PadreJ

Don’t ever think that you are inturupting. I butt in all the time.
I think that a lot of Protestants don’t understand that Catholics rely on the Church for most of their teaching not individual Bible study. (Study, not necessarily devotion) And this may not be a bad thing as the Church gives us the correct interpretation of scripture. They (Protestants) don’t understand that to the Catholic the graces contained in the Sacraments are just as important as the Bible. The Mass is divided into two main parts. The liturgy of the Word, and the liturgy of the Eucharist. Both of those combined bring us the fullness of truth, and communion with our Lord; something that sadly no Protestants have.

 

[Cusader911]

Re: What to do with a King James Bible

Other than use it for kindling?

What’s Inside
•The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes
•The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary
•The entire King James Version in parallel
latinvulgate.com/

 

[Saved_Lady]

John 6: 53 *“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink His Blood you have no life in you.54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” *I noticed that you conveniently left out the verses that did not make your argument about partaking in the Eucharist. It is a common misconception that the Catholic church is “ensuring” as you assert salvation by works. Even the best and lest of Fundamentalists knows that the Communion (Eucharist) is the spiritual food and drink of the Christian that cannot be avoided. You also cannot avoid daily feasting on God’s word either.

You also speak of works as if they are not part of any believers life; they are a result of faith. Did you cut this part out of your Bible?
James 2: 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Or
Hebrews 6: 10 For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Or
Galatians 5: 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

As to the attending Mass, it sounds from your comment that you are saying that regular attendance of church is wrong. Maybe you should re-read this verse:
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

But my goodness look, there is doing works and assembling together all in those two verses. I gather by the tone of your last post that you maybe have cut those out of your Bible along with the preceding as Thomas Jefferson did because he did not agree with them. It is either that or you do no know enough about the Roman Catholic Church to understand why they do what they do and because of this you choose to attack them.

I am quite sure that you have “traditions” in your family that you observe in one form or another like having a Christmas tree, giving gifts at Christmas, giving gifts at birthdays, sending cards to relatives at certain times of the year, Thanksgiving dinner, and you name it. But lets look at a “tradition” of society, I would bet that you or members of your family wear particular style clothes (suit and ties dress or skirt), those are traditions of the society we live in. We follow some traditions all the time and yet you would call out the Roman Catholic Church for following age old traditions as well. It puts me in mind of when the disciples came to Jesus in Luke 9 and they told Him that they found people casting out demons in His name and the disciples forbade them to do so. Do you remember Jesus’ response? "49 Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”
50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.” Do not try and stop The Roman Catholic Church, they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ handed down to them from the apostles.

I am sure that I am going to get flack from my other Protestant brethren for defending the Catholic church in this manner but I felt I had to speak to this.

I read your post and I agree, do not try to tell the Catholic they are wrong and the Catholics should not tell the Protestants that we are wrong.

 

[Padrej]

Don’t ever think that you are inturupting. I butt in all the time.
I think that a lot of Protestants don’t understand that Catholics rely on the Church for most of their teaching not individual Bible study. (Study, not necessarily devotion) And this may not be a bad thing as the Church gives us the correct interpretation of scripture. They (Protestants) don’t understand that to the Catholic the graces contained in the Sacraments are just as important as the Bible. The Mass is divided into two main parts. The liturgy of the Word, and the liturgy of the Eucharist. Both of those combined bring us the fullness of truth, and communion with our Lord; something that sadly no Protestants have.

I take it from the last lines of your comment that you have little knowledge of how the Anglicans feel on the matter. I would tend to disagree with your last line as we believe the sacraments are just as important and do think that the teaching along with the sacraments bring you the fullness. If you take say the High Church Anglicans who get into the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament you really have a horse of a different color than most Protestants.
Now lets take this a step further, I have known SOME Methodists who have an affinity for the two sacraments they have (communion & baptism) who feel much as the Anglicans as they are a break away there.
Were you aware of these “oddities” among the Protestants???
What of say the “Lapsed Catholic” that is now Protestant? do you believe that person ever looses the “first love” of the fullness you speak of?

 

[crazzeto]

I take it from the last lines of your comment that you have little knowledge of how the Anglicans feel on the matter. I would tend to disagree with your last line as we believe the sacraments are just as important and do think that the teaching along with the sacraments bring you the fullness. If you take say the High Church Anglicans who get into the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament you really have a horse of a different color than most Protestants.
Now lets take this a step further, I have known SOME Methodists who have an affinity for the two sacraments they have (communion & baptism) who feel much as the Anglicans as they are a break away there.
Were you aware of these “oddities” among the Protestants???
What of say the “Lapsed Catholic” that is now Protestant? do you believe that person ever looses the “first love” of the fullness you speak of?

The problem you have though, is that you really can’t make broad statements about Anglicans like that, because they don’t beleive all the same thing… More over, even if you individually, and even if your pastor does believe in say, the real precense of the Eucharist, your theology still fundamentally rejects those concepts (the difference being Anglicans are free to disagree with the core theology of their Church).

More over with regard to the sacraments, we Catholics certainly believe in the necessity of Apistolic succession, which the Anglican’s don’t have (something affirmed by the Kings men years ago when reunification was first entertained). With out valid holy orders, the sacraments are invalid.

 

[Padrej]

The problem you have though, is that you really can’t make broad statements about Anglicans like that, because they don’t beleive all the same thing… More over, even if you individually, and even if your pastor does believe in say, the real precense of the Eucharist, your theology still fundamentally rejects those concepts (the difference being Anglicans are free to disagree with the core theology of their Church).

More over with regard to the sacraments, we Catholics certainly believe in the necessity of Apistolic succession, which the Anglican’s don’t have (something affirmed by the Kings men years ago when reunification was first entertained). With out valid holy orders, the sacraments are invalid.

Have you ever heard of the Order of Corporate Reunion? This happened when some Catholic Bishops started the reunion with some Anglicans and made some bishops. The Ruling from Rome on these is “Valid but irregular.”
My lines of apostolic succession also have one active Roman Catholic Bishop in them who was a consecrator. Are you now saying that my Anglican lines are not valid and neither are that of the Roman Catholic bishop who laid hands on me? Be careful as not all Anglicans are the same. Those of the Conservative branch have Orthodox bishops in their lines and orthodox bishops consecrators as well as Roman Catholics. Those in the Mainline Episcopal church DO NOT.
If some Anglicans (such as myself) are already recognized by the Orthodox and Rome it would be unfair to paint us all with the same brush.

 

[crazzeto]

Have you ever heard of the Order of Corporate Reunion? This happened when some Catholic Bishops started the reunion with some Anglicans and made some bishops. The Ruling from Rome on these is “Valid but irregular.”
My lines of apostolic succession also have one active Roman Catholic Bishop in them who was a consecrator. Are you now saying that my Anglican lines are not valid and neither are that of the Roman Catholic bishop who laid hands on me? Be careful as not all Anglicans are the same. Those of the Conservative branch have Orthodox bishops in their lines and orthodox bishops consecrators as well as Roman Catholics. Those in the Mainline Episcopal church DO NOT.
If some Anglicans (such as myself) are already recognized by the Orthodox and Rome it would be unfair to paint us all with the same brush.

From new advent:

newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm

It was natural that this advance section of the Anglican Church should seek to ratify its position, and to escape from its fatal isolation, by desiring some scheme of corporate reunion and especially by endeavouring to obtain some recognition of the validity of its orders. With the truest charity, which consists in the candour of truth, Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on Unity, pointed out that there can be no reunion expect on the solid basis of dogmatic unity and submission to the divinely instituted authority of the Apostolic See. In September, 1896, after a full and exhaustive inquiry, he issued a Bull declaring Anglican Orders to be "utterly null and void", and in a subsequent Brief addressed to the Archbishop of Paris, he required all Catholics to accept this judgment as “fixed, settled, and irrevocable” (firmum, ratum et irrevocabile).

 

[FrJohnB]

Crazzeto
I think you may need to kno a little of the history of the Order of Corporate Reunion.
The Order of Corporate Reunion (OCR) was established amid the developments in nineteenth-century Anglicanism that gave rise to the Oxford Movement and the consequent debate over the validity of Anglican orders, a debate that reached a head with the issuing of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. This Bull, which was the outcome of a petition by both Anglicans and Roman Catholics requesting an investigation of the issue, declared Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void”, an official position which remains that of the Vatican today.

Under these circumstances, some Anglicans resolved to ensure that their church had access to Holy Orders which were undoubtedly valid and that would remove the related obstacles to corporate reunion between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.

A Pastoral Letter was published in “Reunion Magazine” of 1877 (reprinted in “The Tablet” of 23 January 1909). This letter was planned as early as 1875 and had been initially addressed to Henry, Cardinal Manning. The eventual letter read in part:

“Every faithful Christian must surely be distressed and bewildered at the spectacle afforded by the evil state into which the National Church of England has been brought by departure from ancient principles and by recent events. A long course of change, usurpation, and revolution has moved all her old land-marks. The evil is continually working; no man being able to foresee whereunto it will grow, or what will be the end thereof. Two things are certain, however: on the one hand, that all semblance of independent existence and corporate action has departed from the Established Church, so that she is given up, as it were, bound hand and foot, and blindfolded into the toils of her enemies; while, on the other hand, these enemies are waiting to rob her of her privileges and possessions, and are even now debating how to divide the spoil. We affirm, that in the Providence of God, the evil itself has opened the door to a remedy. For the Bishops of the Church of England, having yielded up all canonical authority and jurisdiction in the spiritual order, can neither interfere with, nor restrain, Us in Our work of recovering from elsewhere that which has been forfeited or lost - securing three distinct and independent lines of a new Episcopal Succession, so as to labour corporately, and on no sandy foundation, for the healing of the breach which has been made. In thus associating ourselves together, we solemnly take as the basis of this Our Order the Catholic Faith as defined by the Seven General Councils, acknowledged as such by the whole Church of the East and the West before the great and deplorable schism, and as commonly received in the Apostles´ Creed, and the Creed of Nicaea, and the Creed of St. Athanasius. To all the sublime doctrines so laid down, We declare our unreserved adhesion, as well as to the principles of Church constitution and discipline, set forth and approved by the said Seven General Councils. Furthermore, until the whole Church shall speak on the subject, We accept all those dogmatic statements set forth in common by the Council of Trent and the Synod of Bethlehem respectively, with regard to the doctrine of the Sacraments… Thanking Almighty God most humbly for the restoration of Brotherhoods, Sisterhoods, and Guilds, We solemny affirm that the Monastic Life, duly regulated according to the laws of the Catholic Church, is a most salutary institution, in perfect harmony with the spirit of the Gospel; and is full of profit to those who, being carefully tried and examined, make full proof of their calling thereto. Our services will always be at the disposal of such - upon whom We invoke the Divine blessing. As regards the chief aim of this new Order - Corporate Reunion - it is needful to remark finally, that, while We have to deplore the divisions existing amongst the churches, We cannot unchurch any having a true succession. Therefore, We pray for all, We remove all stumblingblocks in the way of union amongst the baptized, whom We hail and regard as brethren, while, on disputed points of Church opinion not yet defined by lawful Authority. We appeal to a free General Council, with earnest prayers to God for its speedy assembly and guidance by the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

Who were the men who lay behind this letter, and where did the new Episcopal Succession they referred to come from? John Thomas Seccombe (1835-95), a medical officer and magistrate, had been conditionally re-ordained priest and consecrated on 18-19 November 1866 by Jules Ferrette (1828-1904), who had been consecrated as Bishop of Iona on 2 June by Mutran Boutros (later Patriarch Ignatius Boutros IV) of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Frederick George Lee (1832-1902), an Anglican priest, was consecrated in Venice in June 1877 by Abbot-General Ignas Guregh (Ignations Ghiurekian) of the Ordo Mechitaristarum Venetiarum (“Mekhitarists”). Thomas Wimberly Mossman SSC (1826-89), Anglican rector of West Torrington, Lincs., was consecrated in June 1877 by Luigi Nazari di Calabiana, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan, who may have been assisted by others. It was the Archbishop of Milan who was instrumental in encouraging the creation of the OCR.
You can see it was from we Catholics that this formed this union.

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks for that post FrJohnB… What I’m missing is where it contradicts the Pope’s encylical stating Anglican orders are null and void. Meaning they lack valid holy orders, which would contradict any statement suggesting that they are “valid but irregular”. They can’t be null and void and at the same time “valid but irregular”.

Anglican Priests lack valid Holy Orders, and in fact if you watch Journey home with an Anglican Priest convert (I’ve seen several) usually one of the first things they talk about is “at the time I thought I was really turning the bread and wine into Christs body and blood, but I wasn’t because I didn’t have valid holy orders”.

 

[FrJohnB]

The Orthodox Church in America has now started recognizing the validity of certain Anglican orders along with other Orthodox leaders. These Orthodox bishops are also “regularizing” the Anglican orders of some to bring them into the Apostolic succession. So As Padrej points out it would be unfair to paint all of them with a broad brush despite the fact that we have a Papal Bull to the contrary.
He and I have had this discussion before, and come to find out the Catholic bishop that was one of his consecrators was and is still a valid Roman Catholic bishop. That begs the question, if we (along with the Orthodox) are handing out our lines to conservative Anglicans can we still make the claim that they are not in Apostolic Succession?

 

[crazzeto]

The Orthodox Church in America has now started recognizing the validity of certain Anglican orders along with other Orthodox leaders. These Orthodox bishops are also “regularizing” the Anglican orders of some to bring them into the Apostolic succession. So As Padrej points out it would be unfair to paint all of them with a broad brush despite the fact that we have a Papal Bull to the contrary.
He and I have had this discussion before, and come to find out the Catholic bishop that was one of his consecrators was and is still a valid Roman Catholic bishop. That begs the question, if we (along with the Orthodox) are handing out our lines to conservative Anglicans can we still make the claim that they are not in Apostolic Succession?

I’ll admit to a lack of familiarity as to what the Orthodox are doing, however the “passing on” of the line isn’t as simple as “well if you have it you have it”. It’s not a like a license to drive, or some such thing. Certainly one must consider the intent, and the intent of the Anglicans was to:

Support Schism (I guess the E. Orthodox wouldn’t have a problem here)
Deny the teaching on the real presence (again, despite what some individauls believe)
Deny Sacraed Tradition
Deny the authority of Rome (I guess the E. Orthodox would have no issue there)
among other things.

Which such beliefs at the very core of anglicanism, how can you confidently say they have maintained a valid unbroken line of apistolic succession?

 

[greggy53]

I take it from the last lines of your comment that you have little knowledge of how the Anglicans feel on the matter. I would tend to disagree with your last line as we believe the sacraments are just as important and do think that the teaching along with the sacraments bring you the fullness. If you take say the High Church Anglicans who get into the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament you really have a horse of a different color than most Protestants. Now lets take this a step further, I have known SOME Methodists who have an affinity for the two sacraments they have (communion & baptism) who feel much as the Anglicans as they are a break away there.
Were you aware of these “oddities” among the Protestants???

I understand that the Anglican share many of our beliefs. But I don’t believe they have the fullness of truth nor a valid consecration of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches this, so I stand by my statement. However, I do get your point about me lumping all Protestants into one basket. You are right about that as the word “Protestant” covers a host of different beliefs and doctrines as evidenced by over 10,000 different denominations. Any serious attempt to sort them out boggles the mind.

What of say the “Lapsed Catholic” that is now Protestant? do you believe that person ever looses the “first love” of the fullness you speak of?

I have a brother in-law who to borrow a Protestant phrase has been “back slid” for many years. A born again Christian who knows the scriptures very well. I have talked to him about it many times… I have presented the Catholic arguments to him, but he never can give an adequate answer. I believe it is in his particular case a spirit of rebellion. Rebellion against the authority of the Church. He went to Catholic school as I did, and did not react well to the discipline there. I too was a “bad boy” but the discipline there was exactly what I needed, so I have nothing but fond memories of my experience in the Catholic Schools. My brother in-law however reacted completely different to the experience and has nothing but bad memories, and resentments that he carries with him today. Does he love God? Yes definitely. His salvation? I have no doubt he has as good a chance as any of going to Heaven. I told him once he would have to repent his heresy in Purgatory, but I don’t think he believes me.

 

[FrJohnB]

Thanks for that post FrJohnB… What I’m missing is where it contradicts the Pope’s encylical stating Anglican orders are null and void. Meaning they lack valid holy orders, which would contradict any statement suggesting that they are “valid but irregular”. They can’t be null and void and at the same time “valid but irregular”.

Anglican Priests lack valid Holy Orders, and in fact if you watch Journey home with an Anglican Priest convert (I’ve seen several) usually one of the first things they talk about is “at the time I thought I was really turning the bread and wine into Christs body and blood, but I wasn’t because I didn’t have valid holy orders”.

IF Anglican Holy Orders are invalid as you so claim why then was MGR. Graham Leonard the Former Bishop of London (God rest his soul) who was received by John Paul II NOT re-ordained because of some of the lines that Padrej is speaking of like the old Catholic Lines of Utrecht that some Anglicans also carry? When he was received he was sub-conditionally blessed which means his orders were recognized. Can you explain this if you say their orders are NOT valid?

 

[GKC]

The problem you have though, is that you really can’t make broad statements about Anglicans like that, because they don’t beleive all the same thing… More over, even if you individually, and even if your pastor does believe in say, the real precense of the Eucharist, your theology still fundamentally rejects those concepts (the difference being Anglicans are free to disagree with the core theology of their Church).

More over with regard to the sacraments, we Catholics certainly believe in the necessity of Apistolic succession, which the Anglican’s don’t have (something affirmed by the Kings men years ago when reunification was first entertained). With out valid holy orders, the sacraments are invalid.

Certainly (with respect to five of the seven sacraments, any way). But Anglicans do not affirm Apostolicae Curae (a subject I am more than moderately familiar with).

And just what do you think Anglican theology says, with regard to the Real Presence?

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus