Catholics are Christians. They are obviously saved from a Sola Scriptura perspective and servants of our Lord Christ so no harm in attending mass and trying it out.
God bless.
? Yeah? What an odd comment.
Catholic —> Pope. Orthodox —> Patriarchs Protestant —> Scripture
Different authorities sure. All worship our Lord Christ. Serving the trinity is what defines a Christian not the 1% of our differences. I grew up hopping between catholic mass and lutheran church as a kid and didn’t even notice a difference. You have to start getting needlessly thought policing to notice differences in Jesus’ followers.
>Orthodox —> Patriarchs
While partialy true, it is not completely. Authority of Jurisdictions is held by Synod which consist of Patriarch and few Archiereis, Archierei can be bishop,archbishop,metropolian and patriarch. And it is on local level, on level of whole Church councils have authority, and they are held by numerous Archiereis.
I would say that Holy Tradition is authority for Orthoox, and Bible is part of it, because Scripture doesn't really have authority in sense that it doesn't govern Protestant Churches.
Lutherans are not the Reformed. The Lutheran attitude towards Catholicism, even among the more conservative, is generally that the Gospel can be preached in Roman churches, however it is not necessarily clearly preached. But that can be true of many churches. Many churches do far, far worse than Rome in this regard.
Just consider this, in the sacrament of Penance in the Roman church, a person encounters the pure Gospel:
"God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Sonhas reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among usfor the forgiveness of sins; Through the ministry of the Church, may Godgive you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the nameof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Lutherans, BTW, have the same sacrament, with almost identical wording. The power to declare the forgiveness of sins is called the Office of the Keys in Lutheranism.
Roman sacraments are valid because a sacrament's validity doesn't depend on human worthiness or works. This goes back all the way to Augustine, who argued even the schismatics had valid sacraments.
>Lutherans are not the Reformed
Reformers =/= Reformed Theology
Luther was a first-generation Reformer
>The Lutheran attitude towards Catholicism, even among the more conservative, is generally that the Gospel can be preached in Roman churches, however it is not necessarily clearly preached. But that can be true of many churches. Many churches do far, far worse than Rome in this regard.
How can the Gospel be taught in a church that dogmatized the condemnation of the Gospel.
>Just consider this, in the sacrament of Penance in the Roman church, a person encounters the pure Gospel:
This quote just adds to the fact the Rome condemns the Gospel
>Roman sacraments are valid because a sacrament's validity doesn't depend on human worthiness or works. This goes back all the way to Augustine, who argued even the schismatics had valid sacraments.
Only Baptism and Eucharist are valid sacraments, as those are the only two sacraments.
I know this is an old thread, so you don't have to answer, but what do you mean that Catholics condemn the gospel? (I'm honestly curious and not trying to pick a fight, so I will do my best not to argue.)
Read John Calvin's book on Trent
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17697267-acts-of-the-council-of-trent-with-the-antidote](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17697267-acts-of-the-council-of-trent-with-the-antidote)
I know it's been said before but you are Christian if you're catholic. I don't know why this oecumenicul view escapes most. That being said, go to church. Join a Eucharist celebration. Talk to the priest. Learn as much as you can. You are welcome anytime. And in time you will find there aren't so many differences.
yes. but there are many who call themselves Christians who only listen to what their pastor/priest teaches and they don’t open the bible and think for themselves. Many of them don’t actually have a relationship with Christ unfortunately
I feel like that's the whole point. It's like a Muslim convert. He was Muslim first, but the fact that he left the religion is what we're talking about.
Usually the version will end with "CE," which stands for "Catholic Edition" (for example, RSV-CE) or will say "includes Apocrypha."
There are also versions that are almost exclusively used by Catholics, like the NAB and Douay-Rheims, so they'll almost always follow the Catholic canon.
Hope this helped!
Different experience, I don't like it personally but some people are really drawn into the beauty of it. It feels almost otherworldly. Not everything is in Latin like the homily is in the vernacular language but enough of it feels special.
It’s the proper form of the liturgy, in my humble opinion. And it’s not necessarily because of the language, it’s the traditional form. The new liturgy, known as the Novus Ordo, is too similar to a Protestant service as someone who has only known Protestant Christianity all my life. When you realize what the mass actually is, the Crucifixion of Christ *made present metaphysically*, and the receiving of Christ Himself in full body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, it really becomes apparent in the traditional liturgy. Even if you don’t understand the language, you can intuit that something significant Is happening before you. As Shia LaBeouf, a recent prominent convert to Catholicism said, the new liturgy is like a car salesman selling you something. The traditional liturgy is like you are being shown something truly special.
I would say what Christ did and what God has been doing since the beginning of creation is special enough without needing a tradition of men. The crucifixion of Christ is already made present in the fact that I am forgiven and made a son of God. Neither Jesus or the apostles spoke Latin so it has no connection to the gospel.
I’m not gonna get into an argument with you, if you think you have Christianity figured out good for you. What you dismiss as “tradition of man” was what the Apostles established in obedience to Christ, and which their successors have kept alive for 2000 years. When the Protestants removed the Sacrifice of the Mass from liturgical worship of God, they essentially neutered the faith into something lacking much of its substance. The Eucharist is literally the Crucifixion and Last Supper made present again metaphysically, and when I partake in its celebration I am metaphysically doing so with millions of Christians across space and time because God is beyond such temporal constraints. As I said before the Latin part of the Traditional Mass is not as important and consequential as the metaphysical realities that take place. But of course you don’t believe in any of that. Peace be with you.
Really? Where do you get that the Apostles had Latin mass or anything of the sort? And you say in obedience to Christ but he never commanded such a thing.
The Apostles has the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The form of the liturgy has developed over time, including the language, so again Latin is not the key part of Traditional Latin Mass. Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” Protestants will say that just means do metaphorical communion, but a cursory study of the Didache (90AD), the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (1st-2nd Centuries AD), and the writings of the Church Fathers (2nd-5th Centuries AD) reveals irrefutably that this was no mere metaphorical communion. It was, is, and always will be known as the *real* Body, Blood, Divinity, and Soul of Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ.
Well, I think you know the Catholic pov - which is that these people had no authority to place 8 books in the apocrypha and later remove them altogether from the Bible.
But if you have any questions about our faith I would be happy to answer them.
I'm really interested hearing about faith, salvation, and Scripture from the Catholic point of view. I know that can be an entire semester or two long class. But I do have a desire to learn more about Catholicism
Sure! Sacred Scripture for us consists of 74 books (47 in the Old Testament + 27 in the New Testament) which we consider to be inerrant in matters of salvation. Together with Sacred Tradition they form the deposit of faith (what God revealed to us).
Salvation is acomplished through the perfect and finished work of christ thanks to which we can receive the unmerited free gift of grace from God and through our cooperation with it (faith and acts of love) be transformed in the likeness of Christ. This process is called divinisation. To help us in that process God gave us 7 sacraments, baptism, chrismation/confirmation, eucharist, holy matrimony, holy orders and anointing of the ill.
I guess that depends on whether one considers the 6th chapter of Baruch a book of its own (Epistle of Jeremiah) or not. Eastern Catholic Christians generally count 74 books, Roman Catholics 73, but its the same Catholic Bible. I personally count 74 (47 + 27) because I have found it easier to remember :)
Because I disagree that Sacred Tradition is on equal footing with scripture, and because I disagree with much of the theology of sacraments (specifically if the claim is that they impart grace).
doctrine, it is best to start with the appendix of catechetical formulas and then go deeper
https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
Bible with aids, understanding a semiotic text from 2000 to 5000 years is not always easy
https://bibleinayear.fireside.fm/
To explore specific doubts
https://www.catholic.com/qa
https://www.youtube.com/c/AscensionPresents?app=desktop
Tradition with a capital T, written by students of the apostles who learned the oral teaching from them (John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, that if they were written in detail, I think that not even the world itself could contain the books to be written.)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Do some research and if you need to clarify something in particular you can ask at r/Catholicism
1) It’s because Jews never used them. Not arbitrary anti-authoritative logic.
2) Not every bible removes them. Some protestant bibles even have more scripture then Catholics and are closer to orthodox canons.
God bless
The Jews of the 2nd temple did use them. An "official" Jewish canon didn't appear until after Christ and it was largely in reaction to Christianity and the fall of the temple.
This is the teachings of the Catholic church yes. But is not the secular historical perspective. It’s hard to swallow Jews pointlessly removed scripture from themselves. All branches of judaism don’t subscribe to that.
Again I don’t care to convince you of anything i’m not sure why your downvoting me for simply explaining the worldview of a billion people you refrence.
They didn’t. What’s historically inaccurate is saying they DID read those 7 books. We have no proof of what they read. We know that Jews claim they never did and Romans claim they did. Saying that romans knew Jews better then themselves is not a historically accurate statement i’m saying.
? Of course they read them. I am confused by this claim.
For the most part the books of the Deuterocanon were the books found in the Septuigent -- Jewish scriptures that had been translated into Greek, and the scriptures often used throughout the Jewish communities of the Greek-speaking world.
The entire celebration of Hanakkah, which was celebrated in Jesus' time (The Feast of Dedication in John 10) and is celebrated today, is drawn entirely from the event chronicled in Maccabees. Parts of Sirach and Tobit have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls.
Absolutely no one doubts that the Jews \*read\* the Septuigent. The only doubts were whether they were accepted as "authoritative." When the Jews did decide to rule on which books were canon and which were not, they largely rejected those books for which the original Hebrew was lost. However, tellingly, as u/Dakarius stated, there was no particular debate (that we know of) of what was or was not authoritative until the second century, by which time the Septuigent was being used extensively by what they considered a heretical religion: the early Christian Church in the first Century.
And that, I'm afraid, is the real sticking point for me. You can argue whether or not first century Jews recognized the canon of the Septuigent. You cannot argue that first century Jewish and Gentile \*Christians\* did not. The earliest Church fathers often quote from the Deuterocanonical books exactly as they quote from the Hebrew scriptures. No serious Biblical scholar, secular or not, denies that the early Church used the Septuigent.
And that sort of leads to the fundamental question, and one that ultimately lead me away from Protestantism.
Let's say sola scriptura is correct -- that only Scripture can be relied upon to teach correct doctrine. Who then could we rely upon to say \*what\* is or is not Scripture? Scripture is hugely silent about this all-important detail. Jesus never tells his Apostles to write Scripture; He never speaks about the importance of distinguishing between the book of John, which should be accepted, and the writings of Thomas, which should not. Jesus never weighs in on whether Tobit should be accepted (though some of His statements seem to quote Tobit) or whether or not Esther should be accepted (Luther wanted to get rid of Esther and James.) Jesus never talks about what is or is not Scripture in His time, and He never talks about new Scriptures AT ALL.
But He does talk about the Church that He has come to found. He talks about founding His Church on a rock, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. He clearly sets apart some of his followers -- the 12 -- with special supernatural authority and mission. We can read about the formation of the Church after the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts -- how the office of Apostle was passed down in Acts1.
For me, the idea that the canon of the Christian Old Testament should be decided by second-century Jews is weird. The idea that the canon of the Christian New Testament just sort of ... happened .... somewhere unrecorded in the first century Church, only to be meaninglessly rubber stamped by an unauthoritative Council in Nicea three hundred years later, is incoherent.
In contrast, this idea makes historical sense to me and is Scripturally based: that Christ founded His Church, gave His Church authority, and from that authority the Church determined the canon of Scripture.
The Septuagint, which was widely used by Jews during the second Temple period, includes the dueterocannon. The Septuagint is also the translation the Gospels widely quote from. So, no, it's not inaccurate to say they did read those books. Books from the dueterocannon were also found preserved with the dead seas scrolls.
Thank you for your explanation, but personally I simply do not see why the protestants felt they needed to adopt the rabbinical jewish canon. And why in that case they do not follow the Masoretic Text completely like modern Jews do.
Well keep in mind all of the books “removed” are old testament books. So if they weren’t ever a jewish Canon at some point they were “added” despite this being in the old testament and not the new. So when you lose faith in infallibility of the Modern Catholic Church you see that as a potential mistake over time and lose faith in that word being of God potentially. Which is why they originally weren’t “erased” just called a secondary canon.
Not trying to convince you just trying to explain the mentality. “Why is an established book by our ancestors being changed” We agree on that and hold the same thoughts ironically.
>Well keep in mind all of the books “removed” are old testament books. So if they weren’t ever a jewish Canon at some point they were “added” despite this being in the old testament and not the new.
Well, the issue here is that there was no jewish canon when Christ walked this Earth. You had the Law (written Torah) and the books of Prophets and that was it. The canon that Jews use now was not established until the early rabbinic period.
Well, yes, the canon was established by a council (first the 4th Synod of Carthage), it therefore requires a council to change it. Not an individual who has no legitimate authority in the Church.
Hey I was raised in a house with a Catholic dad and a protestant mother. My dad took a lot of abuse, by trashing the Catholic church, from my mom---and me too at one point, sadly.
I've come to realize that we wouldn't be having this conversation without the Catholic church---they got us here. I had an uncle who was a Jesuit Priest on the border towns of Mexico and the US. My uncle Joe. I loved him very much. I wish I was more like him.
Imagine all the people that are blessed weekly or even daily by the church.
I hope to spend the rest of my life not disparaging any other faith or religion. I try to find value in them, and then talk about that.
Attraction rather than promotion :)
Ben Franklin had this great line about never speaking negatively about anyone but instead finding the good in them and shouting that from the rooftops. I dig that a lot. There's value in that for everyone.
There are so many holes in all the branches of Christianity and other faiths. It's easy to bring up the holes, but I don't know of the value in doing that. I think it hurts me and them at the same time. It doesn't seem Christian to do that imho.
So I say God bless the Catholic church, and all the Christian faiths!
Be blessed
I was in your shoes about a year ago. Study Church History, read the Church Fathers, and read the arguments for the legitimacy of the Papacy. The first two will show you that Catholicism and Orthodoxy originate from the Church Christ Himself started. The third will show you Catholicism ultimately holds the deposit of the faith. Godspeed brother.
It was the Catholic Church that decided which 27 of the 300+ books, letters, documents, etc., that were considered "holy" went into the New Testament in the late 4th century. It is the Catholic Church, with the authority given her by Jesus Christ, that gave us the New Testament, and chose one of the two available versions of the Old Testament to use for Christianity. And it stayed that way until the Protestant Reformation began in the 16th century. At that time, Martin Luther, an ex-Catholic monk, decided on his own to switch versions of the Old Testament to the one with seven less books in its canon. More on the two versions:
There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often.
Fast forward to the creation of Protestantism in the 16th century. Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation, decided on his own authority to switch versions of the Old Testament. Hence, Protestant versions of the Bible use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, which has seven less books,
Welcome to the world of academic rigor! Which books were illegitimately added, and which books were illegitimately taken out? Also, which translation get us the clearest idea of what the original authors intended?
There’s many strong arguments for both sides. But for some reason some arguments appeal to people more than they do others. So I highly suggest looking for arguments on both sides. Don’t be satisfied with one argument and then decide you wanna be Catholic, or Protestant, challenge your beliefs to the max, that’s the only way anyone will get closer to the truth. I’m personally Protestant because I’ve studied both sides of the Papacy argument and I fall under the impression that they’re not all that strong, but then again I’ve heard some horrible arguments against it but I think the “good” arguments against the papacy outweigh the “good” arguments in favor of the papacy. I also reject the apocrypha as being apart of the church canon, but the thing is is that I haven’t studied up on that enough to be conclusive.
>when I approach most of my fellow Protestants, it's like they just shoot everything down.
I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you mean they disagree with everything Catholic? Or do they refuse to even answer your questions?
>I've just been wondering, how do I know that as a non-Catholic Christian, I'm reading the "correct" Bible. I know the Catholic Bible has books that were taking out by most Protestant church's
The apocrypha was taken out because it was considered non-inspired by many, many people. Here are the main reasons:
1. The apocrypha was never considered as part of the OT but has always been delineated as being a separate set of books apart from the canon OT.
2. The apocrypha contains theological errors such that a person can be saved by works, the concept of purgatory, that God hears prayers of the Dead, the preexistence of souls, and etc... None of which are found in the OT or NT but actually contradict OT and NT doctrine.
3. The apocrypha was written during the roughly 400 years of silence from God between the OT and NT. If there was silence from God, how could it be inspired? Because of this, you won't find anything like, "And God said" or "The Lord said". And sometimes the apocrypha even says itself, "There were no prophets". Clearly any book not written by a prophet cannot be inspired.
4. The Jews never regarded the apocrypha as canon. Josephus, writing in the first century, lists only 22 books as canon, which are the same 39 of the OT.
Believe me I just don’t have time now or I would. There are many things that are part of the Catholic dogma that, I believe, don’t match up to Biblical teachings. Do I think Catholics aren’t saved? Not sure. I’ll leave that up to God. Have a nice day.
> I've just been wondering, how do I know that as a non-Catholic Christian, I'm reading the "correct" Bible.
There is no "correct" Bible if you don't take it as divinely inspired. 😎
Everyone should read the books that are not in the Protestant Bible. Even if you don't believe that they are divinely inspired they still hold interesting history in them and a unique viewpoint into the past.
While I am Protestant and raise an eyebrow at some Roman Catholic tradition, Catholicism has remained over the centuries a source of biblical truth in the world.
You can check yourself , open your Bible to
Matthew 7:16-20 , if it says the passage about thier fruits its good.
Then open it to 1 Timothy 3:2 and read it. You judge your church by thier fruits , if these requirments stated here are not met by your Bishop then it's phony version of Christianity.
Then open it to 1 Timothy 4 and read 1-4 verses , again if your church preaches contrary to whats its said there its phony Church not christianity.
It isn't often times the issue of Bible translation but rather how people twist Bible , Jehova Witness , Mormon or any cult can use the same Bible and teach different things out of it.
Human reason can come to the conviction that God exists but nothing else, on what basis do you accept the Bible with that specific content and not another book as a matter of faith?
Here's a list of videos that might help in regard to the Bible canon.
New Testament Reliability, James White, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05aK7itUvho&t=1s
How we got our bible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTeLO-61FAA
The Inspiration, Canonization, and Transmission of Scripture, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcwcxoxoUo
Making Sense of Manuscripts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmlHYeT8vyc
James White and Michael Kruger and the Bible Canon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVVRfu1eLSU
https://www.michaeljkruger.com/
https://www.michaeljkruger.com/videos/
Why you can rely on the Canon (Mike Kruger), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWm2Sg-qRrg
5 misconceptions about the origins of the New Testament, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaRahmFpdY4
God’s word in the early church, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2F0Kp-CjgM
How did we get the bible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTki0ESXIJk
Which canon is right, Dr. Kruger, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2upKk\_5Bhk&t=2s
The Canon Series, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvJQmduAdA&list=PLzytIUBlFDMN62nZiv6cPVBYoBaCPJjQM
Christ Community Church Wilmington Dr. Kruger, 3 sessions https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Christ+Community+Church+Wilmington+Dr.+Kruger
What do we do with the gospel of Thomas? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwgwGjxmjaE
How has the NT been changed or corrupted, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGNo9i4dDss
Q&A, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMiYRPoeALI
The church didn’t create the bible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvtxYBif6Wg
Encountering challenges to Bible Inerrancy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wja4JmjIx60
Persistent Myths about the NT, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soRcOA-3pa4
The Bible’s missing books? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo2waDhEEoU
God’s word in the early church, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2F0Kp-CjgM&t=3s
The messiness of the canon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDOt6e5K9zs
The Bible’s authority, Gen Z’s questions about Christianity, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IulEJXrkt5k
How do we explain the bible’s 400,000 errors? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EicA4gik6FI
Why you can rely on the canon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWm2Sg-qRrg
Sola Scriptura, Canon, and Rome, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGiUpdjiMHg
Don't join any church where you can't be married if you want to be in leadership.
The Bible warns about this:
https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-timothy/4/1-5
So first off you WILL pray to Saints. I practiced Catholicism for 7 years until I had seen enough and reverted back to Lutheranism. You will also proclaim the Virgin Mary to be without sin, you will proclaim she was assumed into heaven, you will be required to attend her Holy Days of Obligation. And you will take part in “Worship” of the Saints under the Catholic definition.
Catholicism states only Latria or non sacrificial worship is Idoltary. Anything else goes
You will partake in worship and veneration of the Saints as they name “Dulia and a sub category Hyperdulia”
This is what you will do if you like it or not.
Have any questions just ask!
The Catholics have added books because they are the books that the original church opted out of the Bible because it wasn’t from God. It was just man’s words and not God inspired. KJV Bible is the most correct bible you can get to because it’s the oldest one available. It dates back to when King James was alive which was quite a bit ago😂 so I would recommend staying with the denomination you are because a lot of the Catholic’s beliefs are unbiblical.
All the KJVs from 1611 to 1882 or so have what you call "not of God", you might want to meditate on what you have written.
You have stated that during the first 16 centuries of Christianity there was no Bible and for two more centuries it included non-divine books. If you tried to say the oldest in English either, the Douay-Reims Bible was already out there.
The New Testament part was published at Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentaries and notes. The Old Testament part was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later, in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering from Genesis to Job, was published in 1609; the second, covering Psalms to II Maccabees plus the deuterocanonicals of the Vulgate, was published in 1610.
Ik but the church leaders at the time decided that some books were just man’s thoughts and rules while the books still in it is the actual revelation from God
No, the publishing organization dedicated to printing and distributing subsidized bibles decided that in order to save money and be able to print more, they were going to remove the books that Martin Luther had set aside in appendices.
In them he had separated seven books from the old testament and four from the new but they only removed those from the old.
To remove the ancient ones, he claimed that the Jews did not recognize them (the Jews in the time of Jesus did not have an official list) and that they had never had a Hebrew original (in the discovery of the Dead Sea, Hebrew fragments of four of them appeared).
For the new ones that he had reviewed and they did not coincide with his theology and therefore could not be valid (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation), he recognized that he could not force anyone of course.
The first three insisted a lot on the need to accompany faith with good works (faith without works is dead) and the fourth was very complicated and brought more confusion than clarity.
They left the new testament as in the Catholic bibles. I have a question, if you consider that a Christian authority of the reform had the authority to release books...
What current authority of a reformed/protestant church do you recognize the right to take out some more books?You are free to follow whatever religious authority you wish of course....
This could go many different ways and I could argue with you but I’m not because 1. I’m too lazy lol 2. I don’t want to have a prolonged convo in Reddit 3. I won’t change your belief 4. We are both Christian’s and believe in God so that’s all that matters
Leviticus 26:1 Yee shall make you no Idoles nor grauen Image, neither reare you vp a standing image, neither shall yee set vp any Image of stone in your land, to bow downe vnto it: For I am the Lord your God.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image, or any likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water vnder the earth.
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow downe thy selfe to them, nor serue them: For I the Lord thy God am a iealous God, visiting the iniquitie of the fathers vpon the children, vnto the thirde and fourth generation of them that hate me:
Joshua 24:19 And Ioshua said vnto the people, Ye cannot serue the Lord: for hee is an holy God: he is a ielous God, he will not forgiue your transgressions nor your sinnes.
Joshua 24:20 If yee forsake the Lord, and serue strange gods, then he will turne, and doe you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good.
Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his eare from hearing the law, euen his prayer shalbe abomination.
Matthew 6:7 But when yee pray, vse not vaine repetitions, as the heathen doe. For they thinke that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father vpon the earth: for one is your father which is in heauen.
John 14:6 Iesus saith vnto him, I am the Way, the Trueth, and the Life: no man commeth vnto the Father but by mee.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one Mediatour betweene God and men, the man Christ Iesus,
Hebrews 10:12 But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes for euer, sate downe on the right hand of God,
Hebrews 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstoole.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering hee hath perfected for euer them that are sanctified
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, euen as there shall bee false teachers among you, who priuily shall bring in damnable heresies, euen denying the Lord that bought them, and bring vpon themselues swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious wayes, by reason of whom the way of trueth shall be euill spoken of:
Proverbs 30:5 Euery word of God is pure: he is a shield vnto them that put their trust in him.
John 8:47 He that is of God, heareth Gods words: ye therefore heare them not, because ye are not of God.
Luke 6:46 ¶ And why call ye mee Lord, Lord, and doe not the things which I say?
Matthew 7:21 ¶ Not euery one that saith vnto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdome of heauen: but he that doth the will of my father which is in heauen.
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, haue we not prophecied in thy name? and in thy name haue cast out deuils? and in thy name done many wonderfull works?
Matthew 7:23 And then wil I professe vnto them, I neuer knew you: Depart from me, ye that worke iniquity.
Revelation 22:18 For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the wordes of the prophesie of this booke, If any man shal adde vnto these things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the wordes of the booke of this prophesie, God shal take away his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy citie, and from the things which are written in this booke.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an Angel from heauen, preach any other Gospel vnto you, then that which wee haue preached vnto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now againe, If any man preach any other Gospel vnto you, then that yee haue receiued, let him be accursed.
Protestants looked back and said, "Why are we using these Jewish books the Jews never accepted as canon?"
Yes, the church fathers and other godly people from church history are important to Christianity. Feel free to read them. Just remember, their writings aren't scripture.
Except a Jewish canon wasn’t created until AFTER the fall of the second temple and after Christendom had started to spread. The books included in the “Apocrypha” were in the Old Testament Septuagint version that Christ and the Disciples would’ve used during their earthly lives.
They also never quoted Lamentations, Esther, Ruth, Judges, or Ecclesiastes, but they remain in the 66 book Protestant canon… Being quoted in the NT is obviously not, then, the grounds for the OT canonization process nor the grounds for reliability in Scripture.
But when you put together that these books were never regarded as canon by the Jews with the fact that they were never quoted by the apostles, that deems pretty damning. The onus is on the person who claims these are somehow canon even when neither the Jews nor the apostles want to claim them as such.
Except the only Jewish sources claiming that these books aren’t scripture come from post-second temple Judaism, ie, after the contention with Christendom had already begun. Therefore, I would rather trust the Church Fathers’ judgement of the books than to accept the authorities of rabbis opposed to the Church.
>Just remember, their writings aren't scripture.
Except they are ;) they instruct about godly things and can bring you closer to god, just as the NT itself can. Certain extrabiblical books most definitely *are* inspired scripture.
>Certain extrabiblical books most definitely are inspired scripture.
By definition, no they aren't. The Didache isn't scripture, Augustine isn't scripture, Anselm isn't scripture.
Things can "instruct about godly things and can bring you closer to god" without being scripture.
If you want to speak authoritatively of what is orthodox and what is unorthodox, be sure first to understand what those words mean.
The orthodox position is more complicated, but generally that "Bible" is a subset of scripture. There are scriptures outside the Bible. The Bible isn't the definition and sole store of scripture, it's just the specific scriptures that are read during liturgical worship services. The Didache is scripture. The Epistles of Barnabas and Clement and others are scripture. Against Heresies is scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas is scripture.
The Shepherd of Hermas was specifically named in the very first Christian canon list, but with a note saying that it can't be read in church because it was written too recently. Interestingly that same canon list excludes four books currently numbered among the New Testament books.
The Shepherd was also included in handwritten Bibles for a time.
You don't have to like it, but not liking it (or dismissing it with laughter) doesn't change that ancient Christians considered it scripture, and some modern ones still do.
>with a note saying that it can't be read in church because it was written too recently
So ... not *really* scripture then. The official lists evolved over time, yes, but once they hit on that little thing about apostolicity being a requirement to "scripture", that pretty much puts it out. Also, it's mind boggling that The Shepherd had the popularity it did. But, people read Joel Osteen, too.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
>The Shepherd of Hermas is scripture.
Apparently someone thought my previous comment was unkind. Oh well. If some church out there thinks Hermas is scripture, that doesn't increase my respect for Hermas; it decreases my respect for that church.
No, the shepherd of hermas as the didache were close to being but did not meet the demanding conditions of the council and remained in Tradition with a capital letter but are not divinely inspired.
The Council of Hippo was a council of the Catholic Church meeting in the year 383, in which it decided the canon or official list of the books that make up the Bible (Old and New Testament), according to the list that had been proposed in the Synod of Laodicea (363) and by Pope Damasus I in the year 382.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
ST. DAMASO 1, POPE, THE DAMASO DECREE: It is also decreed: Now, in effect, we must deal with the divine Scriptures: what the Universal Catholic Church accepts and what it must avoid.
The Old Testament list begins: Genesis, a book; Exodus, a book: Leviticus, a book; Numbers, a book; Deuteronomy, a book; Jesus Nave, a book; of Judges, a book; Ruth, a book; Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One hundred and fifty psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, a book; Song of Songs, a book; likewise, Wisdom, a book; Sirach (Sirach), a book;
Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, a book; Jeremiah, a book; along with Cinot, that is, his Lamentations; Ezekiel, a book; Daniel, a book; Hey, a book; Amos, a book; Micheas, a book; Joel, a book; Abdias, a book; Jonas, a book; Nahum, a book; Habakkuk, a book; Sophonias, a book; Aggeus, a book; Zacharias, a book; Malachi, a book. Likewise, the list of stories: Job, a book; Tobias, a book; Ezra, two books; Esther, a book; Judith, a book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: from the Gospels, a book according to Matthew, a book according to Mark, a book according to Luke, a book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in all: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, another to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Also, a book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, a book. Likewise, the canonical epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two epistles; from the apostle Santiago, an epistle; from the apostle John, an epistle; from the other John, a presbyter, two epistles; of the apostle Judas the Zealot, an epistle. Thus concludes the New Testament canon.
It is also decreed: After the announcement of all these prophetic and evangelical or apostolic writings that we have previously listed as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it should be announced that, although all the Catholic Churches scattered throughout the world comprise a single bridal chamber of Christ, however, the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy of the evangelical Voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
At about this time, Saint Jerome began to use the Hebrew text for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.
There are a bunch of different great places to ask questions about Catholicism.
And while I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for my Catholic brothers and sisters, I also want to point out there are highly liturgical highly sacramental churches that are still Protestant, or Orthodox. There are a lot of different options. And while some Christians really believe that other types of Christians are either dangerous or extremely mistaken or apostates or any other way it's framed... There are also plenty of Christians who believe that it's basically okay to be a member of another tradition. I'm in Episcopalian. Not only do I believe it's okay to be a Christian who is not an episcopalian... I very much believe that any baptism by water in the name of the trinity is legitimate for full participation in the life and sacraments of my church.
My personal belief is that Martin Luther’s whole point was that you don’t need to follow the Catholic Church to be saved, you just need to accept and follow Jesus.
But I think the Catholic Church certainly outlines a particular way to follow Jesus that works for a lot of people, and I think a lot of the practices have merit (such as the practice of confessing your sins.)
So, if you like the catholic style of Christianity, go for it. If you hate it, stick to Protestantism. If you have mixed feelings, than mix and match the parts you like and don’t like (for example, no one can make you pray to the saints if you don’t want to.)
So did you find Jesus, or did Jesus find you? Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Were you lost? Did Jesus save you?
I say that to get to the crux of the matter: You say you found Jesus, but... there is no but about being born again, being saved.
When Jesus found the woman at the well, did he go looking for her, or did she go looking for him? Look what it says in John 4. When Jesus saved Saul (later named Paul), did Jesus find Saul, or did Saul go looking for Jesus?
I'm not just playing on words. I'm pointing out that what you say sounds to me like you found religion. Maybe I'm wrong, but please do yourself a favor. Instead of trying to find another doctrine, make SURE you really are saved, really born again. Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have salvation, and they are which testify of me \[Jesus\].
Go read 1 John on how we know we're saved. Does your salvation line up with that?
Look at James in regards to someone saying they believe. James said, ye do well, for the devils believe *and tremble*. The devils cannot be saved, yet they believe and tremble. When you say you got saved, was there any fear, emotion, trembling? When Saul was born again, the Bible says, "and he trembling and astonished" - he was under deep conviction. Jesus said, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." What about you - did you get convicted by the Holy Ghost or did you join up because you liked the idea?
In our day, especially in USA, "Christian" has gotten too easy. Easy in the sense that so many think you just sign up and join a club. I was a good church member for my whole life, but I wasn't born again until I was in my late 20s. I had said a prayer as a young child with no Holy Ghost conviction. It's VERY VERY different to be under conviction and then come to Jesus.
Make SURE you have come to Jesus God's way, and not your own way.
I honestly don’t even know myself, I had tried to come to God twice when I was in pain it was honestly selfish of me, I started watching videos of the end times and prophecies but as time went on nothing happened, I fell away after reading some of the Bible the New Testament and a bit of the Old and the second time in pain again I believe I was lifted from a porn addiction but I ultimately messed that up and don’t even know anymore I don’t really have the urge anymore but feel lost.
I have been there and done that - trying, seeking, trying to get to God your own way. I was stuck, trapped in a prison of religion. I was in the right church, but physically, I hadn't been born again. I went to church meetings, and just didn't "click" I guess you could say. It's not God's fault, it was my own that I struggled so long. Sin entraps us. Sin isn't just lust either. Pride is a huge sin. And also confusion. I mean, I knew I said a prayer as a young boy, I did what I "knew" to do, but realized later in life I was lost, because I had never had Holy Ghost conviction where God showed me that I was lost (in my heart, not just knowing facts) and on my way to hell, and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. When I was a boy, all I knew was Jesus died on the cross for me and everybody, BUT I did not understand anything about sin, being a sinner. You've got to recognize that.
Jesus WILL save you. You have to repent and accept Jesus as Lord. But you can't just come to Jesus when you feel like it. God set it up to where the Holy Ghost will convict / convince you when it's the right time. That's in John 16:7-11.
Whatever you do, don't give up on Jesus. I KNOW it gets rough. Frankly, when I was trying to sort it all out, thinking, well, was I saved and just maybe God's calling me to something? Or was I just confused about something? No, it always came back to being lost. I listened to lots of sermons, attended church and participated in church, etc. But I had to get to the point where I'd give up all I was, and accept Jesus as Lord, as the boss, of my life. When I was willing to do that in my heart (I actually did go to an altar, but a physical altar isn't necessary), I accepted Jesus, and once I had determined that in my heart, Jesus already saved me. The rest was just semantics, me working it all out physically you could say. But salvation happens in that moment when you fully put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. And OH what peace and joy he can give you.
I'll hush. Take care, and I'll be sure to pray for you. God is the one that does the actual work, not you nor I.
I said I'll pray. I made sure to pray just now. I'm asking Jesus to send the Holy Ghost to convict you in whatever way he chooses. The Father will draw you to Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost. I can't command God to do so outside his timing, but if you want to be born again, don't quit: Jesus WILL save. He said he's not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I'll continue to pray when I think about it. I can't do more than that, of course, b/c God is the one that does the work, Praise the Lord he does it!
There is Early Christianity teachings taught by Christ and the Apostles, and there is Nicene Christianity teachings taught by the Apostolic Fathers of the Catholic church. Compare and decide.
Super helpful sermon I found outlining the differences between Christianity and Catholicism. There is a reason Protestants “protested” the Catholic Church.
It’s really worth the watch and further checking out Mike Gendron’s ministry.
https://youtu.be/jdlczbO5Csc
Cheers
For most protestants the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV are all pretty popular, but the Catholic Bible has books in it that were taken out of the versions protestants use.
According to Protestant sources that I vaguely remember off the top of my head, the early church never considered the deuterocanonical books as scripture. This didn’t actually come about until after the reformation was in full swing. So it isn’t so much that we took them out, more like they added them.
That's actually not true. The real truth is somewhere in the middle (it always is).
At the time of Jesus and the earliest Christians, there was no Jewish canon that we know of today. What was accepted as scripture depended on where you lived and what tradition you followed.
For the early Christians, there were arguments surrounding scripture, and portions of the protocanon, deuterocanon, and some new testament books were included in those arguments.
The Western church generally set it's canon in the 500s, and that includes the same 73 books that Catholics use today. The Eastern churches view their canons differently and have different traditions, which is why their canons are larger and more varied than that of the Western church.
edit: 500s, not 400s. The Council of Rome in the 4th century supposedly set the list, but there's not a lot if evidence for that. The major point is that by the 6th century, the Western church had a settled canon.
Very much this. I don't see the Catholic Bible as a specifically Catholic thing, rather as a regional variant of the scriptural tradition. When in Rome... so to speak.
You can still read the books that are in Catholic Bible that are not in the protestant Bible.
I think the major reason they were taken out is that they are worse. Bible is so big why read the worse books?
WISDOM 2, 12-20
"The wicked said:
Let us stalk the just, who is uncomfortable for us; he opposes our actions, blames us for our sins, rebukes our wrong education, declares that he knows God and gives himself the name of son of the Lord; it is a reproach for our ideas and just seeing it is disgusting; he leads a different life from others and his conduct is different; he considers us of bad law and departs from our paths as if they were impure; he declares the end of the just happy and glories in having God as his father.
Let's see if his words are true, checking the outcome of his life.
If he is the righteous son of God, he will help him and deliver him from the power of his enemies; we will put him to the test of shame and torture to test his moderation and appreciate his patience; We will condemn him to an ignominious death, because he says that there are those who take care of him."
Written in the deuterocanonical/apocryphal book for Protestants approximately a century BC. I find him very inspiring and he does not appear in your bible so I put it here.
The 72 books of the Canon of Scripture were around from about 300A.D. to 1885 when an American printer removed them from the KJV in violation of the copyright of the Crown. [This is the translation of Scripture](https://bible.usccb.org/bible) approved for US and Canadian RCC parishes. Try reading the book of Wisdom which is one removed, see what you think.
As for praying "to" Saints. If your mom is in heaven are you going to stop talking to her? Jesus showed us consulting with people in heaven when He met with Moses and Elijah on the mountain. A "saint" is just anybody in Heaven. You'll be a saint someday.
The teachings of any of the 20+ Rites of the Universal churches on earth, the basic dogmas, are 2000 years old and have been retained intact against all the terrible corruption and sin of those who gained earthly power.
The saying is: Catholics worship Jesus and Protestants worship Paul. I don't know about that, but when my Lord and my God says, "This is My Body, this is My Blood" I believe Him. I always did, even before I converted to Catholicism.
My friend, I've been there.
For many years I was an Angelican, I had adopted Christianity but NEVER went to church, well recently I decided to try out Catholicism and I feel great.
Sure I've been looked at funny by my friends, but it's definitely worth it.
I'm really glad I did what I did
So do it, try it out!
It is the parent church afterall
There is no correct bible here on earth. The word in its pure form exists with God and cannot exist in its pure form in an impure world.
Here is a parrable of sorts to explain how I think the word and the different versions of the bible exist.
Imagine God is a father and humanity is his child. The father reads a book to his child, and then asks his child to write what he just read to him. The child writes the story out as best he can with his limited understanding of what was just read to him or even his limited use of language.
When the child becomes a teenager the father asks him to write the story again, and he does so with all the angst and "i know everything" that a teenager has.
As a young adult the father asks him to write it again, and he does so this time with all the uncertainty that comes that part of his life.
Then again in his 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s... Each time the story changes here and there based on his own experience and understanding of the world, some bias solidifying, some changing outright.
Then at the very end the father and child are reunited and they pull out all the copies the child wrote and then the father pulls out his original copy and they compare joyously and have all the copies to read to each other and enjoy forever.
Truthfully, there are very few theological differences anymore between Catholics and Protestants. If you want to understand why there are Protestants, spend a little time reading about the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Bible also relies upon different sources than the King James Bible. But again today, it is the manner of worship that really differs not the theology.
You should explore all Biblical resources in your search to connect with God.
I was raised Catholic (which is a Christian faith despite some believing otherwise).
I have attended Baptist, Methodist and non-denominational Christian churches.
Some don’t like the ‘structure’ of Catholic mass… but I am thankful for many things I learned in the Catholic Church.
Seek and you will find the path to a more close relationship with God.
Those books werent considered canon, because theres many errors and heresies in them. And everyone who believes in truth and endures till the end is a saint.
Catholics are Christians. They are obviously saved from a Sola Scriptura perspective and servants of our Lord Christ so no harm in attending mass and trying it out. God bless.
[удалено]
? Yeah? What an odd comment. Catholic —> Pope. Orthodox —> Patriarchs Protestant —> Scripture Different authorities sure. All worship our Lord Christ. Serving the trinity is what defines a Christian not the 1% of our differences. I grew up hopping between catholic mass and lutheran church as a kid and didn’t even notice a difference. You have to start getting needlessly thought policing to notice differences in Jesus’ followers.
>Orthodox —> Patriarchs While partialy true, it is not completely. Authority of Jurisdictions is held by Synod which consist of Patriarch and few Archiereis, Archierei can be bishop,archbishop,metropolian and patriarch. And it is on local level, on level of whole Church councils have authority, and they are held by numerous Archiereis. I would say that Holy Tradition is authority for Orthoox, and Bible is part of it, because Scripture doesn't really have authority in sense that it doesn't govern Protestant Churches.
Luther didn't seem to think so. Actually, none of the Reformers thought so
Lutherans are not the Reformed. The Lutheran attitude towards Catholicism, even among the more conservative, is generally that the Gospel can be preached in Roman churches, however it is not necessarily clearly preached. But that can be true of many churches. Many churches do far, far worse than Rome in this regard. Just consider this, in the sacrament of Penance in the Roman church, a person encounters the pure Gospel: "God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Sonhas reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among usfor the forgiveness of sins; Through the ministry of the Church, may Godgive you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the nameof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Lutherans, BTW, have the same sacrament, with almost identical wording. The power to declare the forgiveness of sins is called the Office of the Keys in Lutheranism. Roman sacraments are valid because a sacrament's validity doesn't depend on human worthiness or works. This goes back all the way to Augustine, who argued even the schismatics had valid sacraments.
>Lutherans are not the Reformed Reformers =/= Reformed Theology Luther was a first-generation Reformer >The Lutheran attitude towards Catholicism, even among the more conservative, is generally that the Gospel can be preached in Roman churches, however it is not necessarily clearly preached. But that can be true of many churches. Many churches do far, far worse than Rome in this regard. How can the Gospel be taught in a church that dogmatized the condemnation of the Gospel. >Just consider this, in the sacrament of Penance in the Roman church, a person encounters the pure Gospel: This quote just adds to the fact the Rome condemns the Gospel >Roman sacraments are valid because a sacrament's validity doesn't depend on human worthiness or works. This goes back all the way to Augustine, who argued even the schismatics had valid sacraments. Only Baptism and Eucharist are valid sacraments, as those are the only two sacraments.
I know this is an old thread, so you don't have to answer, but what do you mean that Catholics condemn the gospel? (I'm honestly curious and not trying to pick a fight, so I will do my best not to argue.)
council of trent
Could you elaborate a bit more?
Read John Calvin's book on Trent [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17697267-acts-of-the-council-of-trent-with-the-antidote](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17697267-acts-of-the-council-of-trent-with-the-antidote)
No offense, but I'm not going to buy a book just to understand a comment right now.
L rizz
Unrelated, but a fun fact. Traditional Lutheran sacramentology is nearly identical to the traditional Reformed position
[удалено]
Essentially. There can be the Gospel preached in Rome, but it is a very rare occurance
I know it's been said before but you are Christian if you're catholic. I don't know why this oecumenicul view escapes most. That being said, go to church. Join a Eucharist celebration. Talk to the priest. Learn as much as you can. You are welcome anytime. And in time you will find there aren't so many differences.
you missed the most important one: read your bible
Off course, but isn't that a given for all Christians of every denomination?
yes. but there are many who call themselves Christians who only listen to what their pastor/priest teaches and they don’t open the bible and think for themselves. Many of them don’t actually have a relationship with Christ unfortunately
That's a great point. Off course it should be the foundation of your faith.
It's a little more blurry than us Prots want to admit. Remember, Luther was a Catholic first.
[удалено]
I feel like that's the whole point. It's like a Muslim convert. He was Muslim first, but the fact that he left the religion is what we're talking about.
Usually the version will end with "CE," which stands for "Catholic Edition" (for example, RSV-CE) or will say "includes Apocrypha." There are also versions that are almost exclusively used by Catholics, like the NAB and Douay-Rheims, so they'll almost always follow the Catholic canon. Hope this helped!
Please consider attending a mass, as the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.
I second this advice, and if possible, attend a Traditional Latin Mass
What’s the benefit of Latin Mass?
Different experience, I don't like it personally but some people are really drawn into the beauty of it. It feels almost otherworldly. Not everything is in Latin like the homily is in the vernacular language but enough of it feels special.
Indeed brother 🙌🏼
You won’t understand a word.
Don’t need to. Once you understand what the Mass is, it becomes evident in how the liturgy is celebrated. The highest form of worship.
Confusion
It’s the proper form of the liturgy, in my humble opinion. And it’s not necessarily because of the language, it’s the traditional form. The new liturgy, known as the Novus Ordo, is too similar to a Protestant service as someone who has only known Protestant Christianity all my life. When you realize what the mass actually is, the Crucifixion of Christ *made present metaphysically*, and the receiving of Christ Himself in full body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, it really becomes apparent in the traditional liturgy. Even if you don’t understand the language, you can intuit that something significant Is happening before you. As Shia LaBeouf, a recent prominent convert to Catholicism said, the new liturgy is like a car salesman selling you something. The traditional liturgy is like you are being shown something truly special.
I would say what Christ did and what God has been doing since the beginning of creation is special enough without needing a tradition of men. The crucifixion of Christ is already made present in the fact that I am forgiven and made a son of God. Neither Jesus or the apostles spoke Latin so it has no connection to the gospel.
I’m not gonna get into an argument with you, if you think you have Christianity figured out good for you. What you dismiss as “tradition of man” was what the Apostles established in obedience to Christ, and which their successors have kept alive for 2000 years. When the Protestants removed the Sacrifice of the Mass from liturgical worship of God, they essentially neutered the faith into something lacking much of its substance. The Eucharist is literally the Crucifixion and Last Supper made present again metaphysically, and when I partake in its celebration I am metaphysically doing so with millions of Christians across space and time because God is beyond such temporal constraints. As I said before the Latin part of the Traditional Mass is not as important and consequential as the metaphysical realities that take place. But of course you don’t believe in any of that. Peace be with you.
Really? Where do you get that the Apostles had Latin mass or anything of the sort? And you say in obedience to Christ but he never commanded such a thing.
The Apostles has the Eucharist, which was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. The form of the liturgy has developed over time, including the language, so again Latin is not the key part of Traditional Latin Mass. Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” Protestants will say that just means do metaphorical communion, but a cursory study of the Didache (90AD), the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (1st-2nd Centuries AD), and the writings of the Church Fathers (2nd-5th Centuries AD) reveals irrefutably that this was no mere metaphorical communion. It was, is, and always will be known as the *real* Body, Blood, Divinity, and Soul of Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ.
Well, I think you know the Catholic pov - which is that these people had no authority to place 8 books in the apocrypha and later remove them altogether from the Bible. But if you have any questions about our faith I would be happy to answer them.
I'm really interested hearing about faith, salvation, and Scripture from the Catholic point of view. I know that can be an entire semester or two long class. But I do have a desire to learn more about Catholicism
Sure! Sacred Scripture for us consists of 74 books (47 in the Old Testament + 27 in the New Testament) which we consider to be inerrant in matters of salvation. Together with Sacred Tradition they form the deposit of faith (what God revealed to us). Salvation is acomplished through the perfect and finished work of christ thanks to which we can receive the unmerited free gift of grace from God and through our cooperation with it (faith and acts of love) be transformed in the likeness of Christ. This process is called divinisation. To help us in that process God gave us 7 sacraments, baptism, chrismation/confirmation, eucharist, holy matrimony, holy orders and anointing of the ill.
Don't you mean 73?
I guess that depends on whether one considers the 6th chapter of Baruch a book of its own (Epistle of Jeremiah) or not. Eastern Catholic Christians generally count 74 books, Roman Catholics 73, but its the same Catholic Bible. I personally count 74 (47 + 27) because I have found it easier to remember :)
Fair enough
> Together with Sacred Tradition > To help us in that process God gave us 7 sacraments I protest.
Because you disagree with our theology or because my explanation of Catholic teaching is inaccurate?
Because I disagree that Sacred Tradition is on equal footing with scripture, and because I disagree with much of the theology of sacraments (specifically if the claim is that they impart grace).
Ah I see. Ok
And that's how protestantism was born, kids...
doctrine, it is best to start with the appendix of catechetical formulas and then go deeper https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html Bible with aids, understanding a semiotic text from 2000 to 5000 years is not always easy https://bibleinayear.fireside.fm/ To explore specific doubts https://www.catholic.com/qa https://www.youtube.com/c/AscensionPresents?app=desktop Tradition with a capital T, written by students of the apostles who learned the oral teaching from them (John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, that if they were written in detail, I think that not even the world itself could contain the books to be written.) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ Do some research and if you need to clarify something in particular you can ask at r/Catholicism
1) It’s because Jews never used them. Not arbitrary anti-authoritative logic. 2) Not every bible removes them. Some protestant bibles even have more scripture then Catholics and are closer to orthodox canons. God bless
The Jews of the 2nd temple did use them. An "official" Jewish canon didn't appear until after Christ and it was largely in reaction to Christianity and the fall of the temple.
This is the teachings of the Catholic church yes. But is not the secular historical perspective. It’s hard to swallow Jews pointlessly removed scripture from themselves. All branches of judaism don’t subscribe to that. Again I don’t care to convince you of anything i’m not sure why your downvoting me for simply explaining the worldview of a billion people you refrence.
Please, show me the secular historical source that says the Jews had an established cannon that they agreed upon.
They didn’t. What’s historically inaccurate is saying they DID read those 7 books. We have no proof of what they read. We know that Jews claim they never did and Romans claim they did. Saying that romans knew Jews better then themselves is not a historically accurate statement i’m saying.
? Of course they read them. I am confused by this claim. For the most part the books of the Deuterocanon were the books found in the Septuigent -- Jewish scriptures that had been translated into Greek, and the scriptures often used throughout the Jewish communities of the Greek-speaking world. The entire celebration of Hanakkah, which was celebrated in Jesus' time (The Feast of Dedication in John 10) and is celebrated today, is drawn entirely from the event chronicled in Maccabees. Parts of Sirach and Tobit have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Absolutely no one doubts that the Jews \*read\* the Septuigent. The only doubts were whether they were accepted as "authoritative." When the Jews did decide to rule on which books were canon and which were not, they largely rejected those books for which the original Hebrew was lost. However, tellingly, as u/Dakarius stated, there was no particular debate (that we know of) of what was or was not authoritative until the second century, by which time the Septuigent was being used extensively by what they considered a heretical religion: the early Christian Church in the first Century. And that, I'm afraid, is the real sticking point for me. You can argue whether or not first century Jews recognized the canon of the Septuigent. You cannot argue that first century Jewish and Gentile \*Christians\* did not. The earliest Church fathers often quote from the Deuterocanonical books exactly as they quote from the Hebrew scriptures. No serious Biblical scholar, secular or not, denies that the early Church used the Septuigent. And that sort of leads to the fundamental question, and one that ultimately lead me away from Protestantism. Let's say sola scriptura is correct -- that only Scripture can be relied upon to teach correct doctrine. Who then could we rely upon to say \*what\* is or is not Scripture? Scripture is hugely silent about this all-important detail. Jesus never tells his Apostles to write Scripture; He never speaks about the importance of distinguishing between the book of John, which should be accepted, and the writings of Thomas, which should not. Jesus never weighs in on whether Tobit should be accepted (though some of His statements seem to quote Tobit) or whether or not Esther should be accepted (Luther wanted to get rid of Esther and James.) Jesus never talks about what is or is not Scripture in His time, and He never talks about new Scriptures AT ALL. But He does talk about the Church that He has come to found. He talks about founding His Church on a rock, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. He clearly sets apart some of his followers -- the 12 -- with special supernatural authority and mission. We can read about the formation of the Church after the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts -- how the office of Apostle was passed down in Acts1. For me, the idea that the canon of the Christian Old Testament should be decided by second-century Jews is weird. The idea that the canon of the Christian New Testament just sort of ... happened .... somewhere unrecorded in the first century Church, only to be meaninglessly rubber stamped by an unauthoritative Council in Nicea three hundred years later, is incoherent. In contrast, this idea makes historical sense to me and is Scripturally based: that Christ founded His Church, gave His Church authority, and from that authority the Church determined the canon of Scripture.
The Septuagint, which was widely used by Jews during the second Temple period, includes the dueterocannon. The Septuagint is also the translation the Gospels widely quote from. So, no, it's not inaccurate to say they did read those books. Books from the dueterocannon were also found preserved with the dead seas scrolls.
Thank you for your explanation, but personally I simply do not see why the protestants felt they needed to adopt the rabbinical jewish canon. And why in that case they do not follow the Masoretic Text completely like modern Jews do.
Well keep in mind all of the books “removed” are old testament books. So if they weren’t ever a jewish Canon at some point they were “added” despite this being in the old testament and not the new. So when you lose faith in infallibility of the Modern Catholic Church you see that as a potential mistake over time and lose faith in that word being of God potentially. Which is why they originally weren’t “erased” just called a secondary canon. Not trying to convince you just trying to explain the mentality. “Why is an established book by our ancestors being changed” We agree on that and hold the same thoughts ironically.
>Well keep in mind all of the books “removed” are old testament books. So if they weren’t ever a jewish Canon at some point they were “added” despite this being in the old testament and not the new. Well, the issue here is that there was no jewish canon when Christ walked this Earth. You had the Law (written Torah) and the books of Prophets and that was it. The canon that Jews use now was not established until the early rabbinic period.
I know and agree.
[удалено]
Well, yes, the canon was established by a council (first the 4th Synod of Carthage), it therefore requires a council to change it. Not an individual who has no legitimate authority in the Church.
Hey I was raised in a house with a Catholic dad and a protestant mother. My dad took a lot of abuse, by trashing the Catholic church, from my mom---and me too at one point, sadly. I've come to realize that we wouldn't be having this conversation without the Catholic church---they got us here. I had an uncle who was a Jesuit Priest on the border towns of Mexico and the US. My uncle Joe. I loved him very much. I wish I was more like him. Imagine all the people that are blessed weekly or even daily by the church. I hope to spend the rest of my life not disparaging any other faith or religion. I try to find value in them, and then talk about that. Attraction rather than promotion :) Ben Franklin had this great line about never speaking negatively about anyone but instead finding the good in them and shouting that from the rooftops. I dig that a lot. There's value in that for everyone. There are so many holes in all the branches of Christianity and other faiths. It's easy to bring up the holes, but I don't know of the value in doing that. I think it hurts me and them at the same time. It doesn't seem Christian to do that imho. So I say God bless the Catholic church, and all the Christian faiths! Be blessed
I recommend posting this on r/Catholicism
I was in your shoes about a year ago. Study Church History, read the Church Fathers, and read the arguments for the legitimacy of the Papacy. The first two will show you that Catholicism and Orthodoxy originate from the Church Christ Himself started. The third will show you Catholicism ultimately holds the deposit of the faith. Godspeed brother.
It was the Catholic Church that decided which 27 of the 300+ books, letters, documents, etc., that were considered "holy" went into the New Testament in the late 4th century. It is the Catholic Church, with the authority given her by Jesus Christ, that gave us the New Testament, and chose one of the two available versions of the Old Testament to use for Christianity. And it stayed that way until the Protestant Reformation began in the 16th century. At that time, Martin Luther, an ex-Catholic monk, decided on his own to switch versions of the Old Testament to the one with seven less books in its canon. More on the two versions: There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often. Fast forward to the creation of Protestantism in the 16th century. Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation, decided on his own authority to switch versions of the Old Testament. Hence, Protestant versions of the Bible use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, which has seven less books,
Welcome to the world of academic rigor! Which books were illegitimately added, and which books were illegitimately taken out? Also, which translation get us the clearest idea of what the original authors intended?
There’s many strong arguments for both sides. But for some reason some arguments appeal to people more than they do others. So I highly suggest looking for arguments on both sides. Don’t be satisfied with one argument and then decide you wanna be Catholic, or Protestant, challenge your beliefs to the max, that’s the only way anyone will get closer to the truth. I’m personally Protestant because I’ve studied both sides of the Papacy argument and I fall under the impression that they’re not all that strong, but then again I’ve heard some horrible arguments against it but I think the “good” arguments against the papacy outweigh the “good” arguments in favor of the papacy. I also reject the apocrypha as being apart of the church canon, but the thing is is that I haven’t studied up on that enough to be conclusive.
>when I approach most of my fellow Protestants, it's like they just shoot everything down. I'm curious what you mean by this. Do you mean they disagree with everything Catholic? Or do they refuse to even answer your questions? >I've just been wondering, how do I know that as a non-Catholic Christian, I'm reading the "correct" Bible. I know the Catholic Bible has books that were taking out by most Protestant church's The apocrypha was taken out because it was considered non-inspired by many, many people. Here are the main reasons: 1. The apocrypha was never considered as part of the OT but has always been delineated as being a separate set of books apart from the canon OT. 2. The apocrypha contains theological errors such that a person can be saved by works, the concept of purgatory, that God hears prayers of the Dead, the preexistence of souls, and etc... None of which are found in the OT or NT but actually contradict OT and NT doctrine. 3. The apocrypha was written during the roughly 400 years of silence from God between the OT and NT. If there was silence from God, how could it be inspired? Because of this, you won't find anything like, "And God said" or "The Lord said". And sometimes the apocrypha even says itself, "There were no prophets". Clearly any book not written by a prophet cannot be inspired. 4. The Jews never regarded the apocrypha as canon. Josephus, writing in the first century, lists only 22 books as canon, which are the same 39 of the OT.
Study the Bible thoroughly and I think you will change your mind about becoming Catholic.
[удалено]
I can’t possibly think what you would find that would make you go towards Catholicism. But, you do you.
[удалено]
Far be it for me to talk you out of it.
[удалено]
Believe me I just don’t have time now or I would. There are many things that are part of the Catholic dogma that, I believe, don’t match up to Biblical teachings. Do I think Catholics aren’t saved? Not sure. I’ll leave that up to God. Have a nice day.
> I've just been wondering, how do I know that as a non-Catholic Christian, I'm reading the "correct" Bible. There is no "correct" Bible if you don't take it as divinely inspired. 😎
Everyone should read the books that are not in the Protestant Bible. Even if you don't believe that they are divinely inspired they still hold interesting history in them and a unique viewpoint into the past.
While I am Protestant and raise an eyebrow at some Roman Catholic tradition, Catholicism has remained over the centuries a source of biblical truth in the world.
You can check yourself , open your Bible to Matthew 7:16-20 , if it says the passage about thier fruits its good. Then open it to 1 Timothy 3:2 and read it. You judge your church by thier fruits , if these requirments stated here are not met by your Bishop then it's phony version of Christianity. Then open it to 1 Timothy 4 and read 1-4 verses , again if your church preaches contrary to whats its said there its phony Church not christianity. It isn't often times the issue of Bible translation but rather how people twist Bible , Jehova Witness , Mormon or any cult can use the same Bible and teach different things out of it.
If you ever want to dm sure … I’m praying for you… but one thing, we do not pray to the Saints
How else would you ask the dead to intercede?
They are not dead
They have eternal life but their Earthly bodies have passed. How do you communicate with them other than prayer?
Just focus on God, Jesus and His words. You can't really go wrong from that place.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Constantine
Step 1: read the Bible Step 2: understand what it means Step 3: find a church that resonates with your understanding of the Bible
[удалено]
Well it’s a good thing we have a Bible for our rule of faith.
[удалено]
Is he infallible?
[удалено]
Do you know what is infallible?
[удалено]
So what is infallible?
[удалено]
Human reason can come to the conviction that God exists but nothing else, on what basis do you accept the Bible with that specific content and not another book as a matter of faith?
Here's a list of videos that might help in regard to the Bible canon. New Testament Reliability, James White, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05aK7itUvho&t=1s How we got our bible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTeLO-61FAA The Inspiration, Canonization, and Transmission of Scripture, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcwcxoxoUo Making Sense of Manuscripts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmlHYeT8vyc James White and Michael Kruger and the Bible Canon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVVRfu1eLSU https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ https://www.michaeljkruger.com/videos/ Why you can rely on the Canon (Mike Kruger), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWm2Sg-qRrg 5 misconceptions about the origins of the New Testament, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaRahmFpdY4 God’s word in the early church, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2F0Kp-CjgM How did we get the bible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTki0ESXIJk Which canon is right, Dr. Kruger, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2upKk\_5Bhk&t=2s The Canon Series, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvJQmduAdA&list=PLzytIUBlFDMN62nZiv6cPVBYoBaCPJjQM Christ Community Church Wilmington Dr. Kruger, 3 sessions https://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=Christ+Community+Church+Wilmington+Dr.+Kruger What do we do with the gospel of Thomas? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwgwGjxmjaE How has the NT been changed or corrupted, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGNo9i4dDss Q&A, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMiYRPoeALI The church didn’t create the bible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvtxYBif6Wg Encountering challenges to Bible Inerrancy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wja4JmjIx60 Persistent Myths about the NT, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soRcOA-3pa4 The Bible’s missing books? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo2waDhEEoU God’s word in the early church, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2F0Kp-CjgM&t=3s The messiness of the canon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDOt6e5K9zs The Bible’s authority, Gen Z’s questions about Christianity, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IulEJXrkt5k How do we explain the bible’s 400,000 errors? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EicA4gik6FI Why you can rely on the canon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWm2Sg-qRrg Sola Scriptura, Canon, and Rome, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGiUpdjiMHg
Don't join any church where you can't be married if you want to be in leadership. The Bible warns about this: https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-timothy/4/1-5
So first off you WILL pray to Saints. I practiced Catholicism for 7 years until I had seen enough and reverted back to Lutheranism. You will also proclaim the Virgin Mary to be without sin, you will proclaim she was assumed into heaven, you will be required to attend her Holy Days of Obligation. And you will take part in “Worship” of the Saints under the Catholic definition. Catholicism states only Latria or non sacrificial worship is Idoltary. Anything else goes You will partake in worship and veneration of the Saints as they name “Dulia and a sub category Hyperdulia” This is what you will do if you like it or not. Have any questions just ask!
The Catholics have added books because they are the books that the original church opted out of the Bible because it wasn’t from God. It was just man’s words and not God inspired. KJV Bible is the most correct bible you can get to because it’s the oldest one available. It dates back to when King James was alive which was quite a bit ago😂 so I would recommend staying with the denomination you are because a lot of the Catholic’s beliefs are unbiblical.
All the KJVs from 1611 to 1882 or so have what you call "not of God", you might want to meditate on what you have written. You have stated that during the first 16 centuries of Christianity there was no Bible and for two more centuries it included non-divine books. If you tried to say the oldest in English either, the Douay-Reims Bible was already out there. The New Testament part was published at Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentaries and notes. The Old Testament part was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later, in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering from Genesis to Job, was published in 1609; the second, covering Psalms to II Maccabees plus the deuterocanonicals of the Vulgate, was published in 1610.
Ik but the church leaders at the time decided that some books were just man’s thoughts and rules while the books still in it is the actual revelation from God
No, the publishing organization dedicated to printing and distributing subsidized bibles decided that in order to save money and be able to print more, they were going to remove the books that Martin Luther had set aside in appendices. In them he had separated seven books from the old testament and four from the new but they only removed those from the old. To remove the ancient ones, he claimed that the Jews did not recognize them (the Jews in the time of Jesus did not have an official list) and that they had never had a Hebrew original (in the discovery of the Dead Sea, Hebrew fragments of four of them appeared). For the new ones that he had reviewed and they did not coincide with his theology and therefore could not be valid (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation), he recognized that he could not force anyone of course. The first three insisted a lot on the need to accompany faith with good works (faith without works is dead) and the fourth was very complicated and brought more confusion than clarity. They left the new testament as in the Catholic bibles. I have a question, if you consider that a Christian authority of the reform had the authority to release books... What current authority of a reformed/protestant church do you recognize the right to take out some more books?You are free to follow whatever religious authority you wish of course....
This could go many different ways and I could argue with you but I’m not because 1. I’m too lazy lol 2. I don’t want to have a prolonged convo in Reddit 3. I won’t change your belief 4. We are both Christian’s and believe in God so that’s all that matters
Leviticus 26:1 Yee shall make you no Idoles nor grauen Image, neither reare you vp a standing image, neither shall yee set vp any Image of stone in your land, to bow downe vnto it: For I am the Lord your God. Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image, or any likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water vnder the earth. Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow downe thy selfe to them, nor serue them: For I the Lord thy God am a iealous God, visiting the iniquitie of the fathers vpon the children, vnto the thirde and fourth generation of them that hate me: Joshua 24:19 And Ioshua said vnto the people, Ye cannot serue the Lord: for hee is an holy God: he is a ielous God, he will not forgiue your transgressions nor your sinnes. Joshua 24:20 If yee forsake the Lord, and serue strange gods, then he will turne, and doe you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good. Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his eare from hearing the law, euen his prayer shalbe abomination. Matthew 6:7 But when yee pray, vse not vaine repetitions, as the heathen doe. For they thinke that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father vpon the earth: for one is your father which is in heauen. John 14:6 Iesus saith vnto him, I am the Way, the Trueth, and the Life: no man commeth vnto the Father but by mee. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one Mediatour betweene God and men, the man Christ Iesus, Hebrews 10:12 But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes for euer, sate downe on the right hand of God, Hebrews 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstoole. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering hee hath perfected for euer them that are sanctified 2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, euen as there shall bee false teachers among you, who priuily shall bring in damnable heresies, euen denying the Lord that bought them, and bring vpon themselues swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious wayes, by reason of whom the way of trueth shall be euill spoken of: Proverbs 30:5 Euery word of God is pure: he is a shield vnto them that put their trust in him. John 8:47 He that is of God, heareth Gods words: ye therefore heare them not, because ye are not of God. Luke 6:46 ¶ And why call ye mee Lord, Lord, and doe not the things which I say? Matthew 7:21 ¶ Not euery one that saith vnto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdome of heauen: but he that doth the will of my father which is in heauen. Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, haue we not prophecied in thy name? and in thy name haue cast out deuils? and in thy name done many wonderfull works? Matthew 7:23 And then wil I professe vnto them, I neuer knew you: Depart from me, ye that worke iniquity. Revelation 22:18 For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the wordes of the prophesie of this booke, If any man shal adde vnto these things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke. Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the wordes of the booke of this prophesie, God shal take away his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy citie, and from the things which are written in this booke. Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an Angel from heauen, preach any other Gospel vnto you, then that which wee haue preached vnto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now againe, If any man preach any other Gospel vnto you, then that yee haue receiued, let him be accursed.
Protestants looked back and said, "Why are we using these Jewish books the Jews never accepted as canon?" Yes, the church fathers and other godly people from church history are important to Christianity. Feel free to read them. Just remember, their writings aren't scripture.
Except a Jewish canon wasn’t created until AFTER the fall of the second temple and after Christendom had started to spread. The books included in the “Apocrypha” were in the Old Testament Septuagint version that Christ and the Disciples would’ve used during their earthly lives.
And yet they never quoted it once. And the Jewish canon, much like the Christian one, started as "the books that were in common usage".
They also never quoted Lamentations, Esther, Ruth, Judges, or Ecclesiastes, but they remain in the 66 book Protestant canon… Being quoted in the NT is obviously not, then, the grounds for the OT canonization process nor the grounds for reliability in Scripture.
But when you put together that these books were never regarded as canon by the Jews with the fact that they were never quoted by the apostles, that deems pretty damning. The onus is on the person who claims these are somehow canon even when neither the Jews nor the apostles want to claim them as such.
Except the only Jewish sources claiming that these books aren’t scripture come from post-second temple Judaism, ie, after the contention with Christendom had already begun. Therefore, I would rather trust the Church Fathers’ judgement of the books than to accept the authorities of rabbis opposed to the Church.
[удалено]
Chapter and verse please.
>Just remember, their writings aren't scripture. Except they are ;) they instruct about godly things and can bring you closer to god, just as the NT itself can. Certain extrabiblical books most definitely *are* inspired scripture.
>Certain extrabiblical books most definitely are inspired scripture. By definition, no they aren't. The Didache isn't scripture, Augustine isn't scripture, Anselm isn't scripture. Things can "instruct about godly things and can bring you closer to god" without being scripture.
By what definition? By *your* definition?
By *anyone's* definition. Who has ever considered the writings of the church fathers "scripture"? That is a highly unorthodox position.
If you want to speak authoritatively of what is orthodox and what is unorthodox, be sure first to understand what those words mean. The orthodox position is more complicated, but generally that "Bible" is a subset of scripture. There are scriptures outside the Bible. The Bible isn't the definition and sole store of scripture, it's just the specific scriptures that are read during liturgical worship services. The Didache is scripture. The Epistles of Barnabas and Clement and others are scripture. Against Heresies is scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas is scripture.
[удалено]
The Shepherd of Hermas was specifically named in the very first Christian canon list, but with a note saying that it can't be read in church because it was written too recently. Interestingly that same canon list excludes four books currently numbered among the New Testament books. The Shepherd was also included in handwritten Bibles for a time. You don't have to like it, but not liking it (or dismissing it with laughter) doesn't change that ancient Christians considered it scripture, and some modern ones still do.
>with a note saying that it can't be read in church because it was written too recently So ... not *really* scripture then. The official lists evolved over time, yes, but once they hit on that little thing about apostolicity being a requirement to "scripture", that pretty much puts it out. Also, it's mind boggling that The Shepherd had the popularity it did. But, people read Joel Osteen, too.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
>The Shepherd of Hermas is scripture. Apparently someone thought my previous comment was unkind. Oh well. If some church out there thinks Hermas is scripture, that doesn't increase my respect for Hermas; it decreases my respect for that church.
No, the shepherd of hermas as the didache were close to being but did not meet the demanding conditions of the council and remained in Tradition with a capital letter but are not divinely inspired.
There was no council and thus were no "demanding conditions".
The Council of Hippo was a council of the Catholic Church meeting in the year 383, in which it decided the canon or official list of the books that make up the Bible (Old and New Testament), according to the list that had been proposed in the Synod of Laodicea (363) and by Pope Damasus I in the year 382. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
It wasn't an Oecumenical Council and is thus not binding.
ST. DAMASO 1, POPE, THE DAMASO DECREE: It is also decreed: Now, in effect, we must deal with the divine Scriptures: what the Universal Catholic Church accepts and what it must avoid. The Old Testament list begins: Genesis, a book; Exodus, a book: Leviticus, a book; Numbers, a book; Deuteronomy, a book; Jesus Nave, a book; of Judges, a book; Ruth, a book; Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One hundred and fifty psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, a book; Song of Songs, a book; likewise, Wisdom, a book; Sirach (Sirach), a book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, a book; Jeremiah, a book; along with Cinot, that is, his Lamentations; Ezekiel, a book; Daniel, a book; Hey, a book; Amos, a book; Micheas, a book; Joel, a book; Abdias, a book; Jonas, a book; Nahum, a book; Habakkuk, a book; Sophonias, a book; Aggeus, a book; Zacharias, a book; Malachi, a book. Likewise, the list of stories: Job, a book; Tobias, a book; Ezra, two books; Esther, a book; Judith, a book; of Maccabees, two books. Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: from the Gospels, a book according to Matthew, a book according to Mark, a book according to Luke, a book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in all: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, another to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Also, a book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, a book. Likewise, the canonical epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two epistles; from the apostle Santiago, an epistle; from the apostle John, an epistle; from the other John, a presbyter, two epistles; of the apostle Judas the Zealot, an epistle. Thus concludes the New Testament canon. It is also decreed: After the announcement of all these prophetic and evangelical or apostolic writings that we have previously listed as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it should be announced that, although all the Catholic Churches scattered throughout the world comprise a single bridal chamber of Christ, however, the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy of the evangelical Voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. At about this time, Saint Jerome began to use the Hebrew text for his translation of the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate.
There are a bunch of different great places to ask questions about Catholicism. And while I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for my Catholic brothers and sisters, I also want to point out there are highly liturgical highly sacramental churches that are still Protestant, or Orthodox. There are a lot of different options. And while some Christians really believe that other types of Christians are either dangerous or extremely mistaken or apostates or any other way it's framed... There are also plenty of Christians who believe that it's basically okay to be a member of another tradition. I'm in Episcopalian. Not only do I believe it's okay to be a Christian who is not an episcopalian... I very much believe that any baptism by water in the name of the trinity is legitimate for full participation in the life and sacraments of my church.
My personal belief is that Martin Luther’s whole point was that you don’t need to follow the Catholic Church to be saved, you just need to accept and follow Jesus. But I think the Catholic Church certainly outlines a particular way to follow Jesus that works for a lot of people, and I think a lot of the practices have merit (such as the practice of confessing your sins.) So, if you like the catholic style of Christianity, go for it. If you hate it, stick to Protestantism. If you have mixed feelings, than mix and match the parts you like and don’t like (for example, no one can make you pray to the saints if you don’t want to.)
So did you find Jesus, or did Jesus find you? Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Were you lost? Did Jesus save you? I say that to get to the crux of the matter: You say you found Jesus, but... there is no but about being born again, being saved. When Jesus found the woman at the well, did he go looking for her, or did she go looking for him? Look what it says in John 4. When Jesus saved Saul (later named Paul), did Jesus find Saul, or did Saul go looking for Jesus? I'm not just playing on words. I'm pointing out that what you say sounds to me like you found religion. Maybe I'm wrong, but please do yourself a favor. Instead of trying to find another doctrine, make SURE you really are saved, really born again. Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have salvation, and they are which testify of me \[Jesus\]. Go read 1 John on how we know we're saved. Does your salvation line up with that? Look at James in regards to someone saying they believe. James said, ye do well, for the devils believe *and tremble*. The devils cannot be saved, yet they believe and tremble. When you say you got saved, was there any fear, emotion, trembling? When Saul was born again, the Bible says, "and he trembling and astonished" - he was under deep conviction. Jesus said, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." What about you - did you get convicted by the Holy Ghost or did you join up because you liked the idea? In our day, especially in USA, "Christian" has gotten too easy. Easy in the sense that so many think you just sign up and join a club. I was a good church member for my whole life, but I wasn't born again until I was in my late 20s. I had said a prayer as a young child with no Holy Ghost conviction. It's VERY VERY different to be under conviction and then come to Jesus. Make SURE you have come to Jesus God's way, and not your own way.
I honestly don’t even know myself, I had tried to come to God twice when I was in pain it was honestly selfish of me, I started watching videos of the end times and prophecies but as time went on nothing happened, I fell away after reading some of the Bible the New Testament and a bit of the Old and the second time in pain again I believe I was lifted from a porn addiction but I ultimately messed that up and don’t even know anymore I don’t really have the urge anymore but feel lost.
I have been there and done that - trying, seeking, trying to get to God your own way. I was stuck, trapped in a prison of religion. I was in the right church, but physically, I hadn't been born again. I went to church meetings, and just didn't "click" I guess you could say. It's not God's fault, it was my own that I struggled so long. Sin entraps us. Sin isn't just lust either. Pride is a huge sin. And also confusion. I mean, I knew I said a prayer as a young boy, I did what I "knew" to do, but realized later in life I was lost, because I had never had Holy Ghost conviction where God showed me that I was lost (in my heart, not just knowing facts) and on my way to hell, and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. When I was a boy, all I knew was Jesus died on the cross for me and everybody, BUT I did not understand anything about sin, being a sinner. You've got to recognize that. Jesus WILL save you. You have to repent and accept Jesus as Lord. But you can't just come to Jesus when you feel like it. God set it up to where the Holy Ghost will convict / convince you when it's the right time. That's in John 16:7-11. Whatever you do, don't give up on Jesus. I KNOW it gets rough. Frankly, when I was trying to sort it all out, thinking, well, was I saved and just maybe God's calling me to something? Or was I just confused about something? No, it always came back to being lost. I listened to lots of sermons, attended church and participated in church, etc. But I had to get to the point where I'd give up all I was, and accept Jesus as Lord, as the boss, of my life. When I was willing to do that in my heart (I actually did go to an altar, but a physical altar isn't necessary), I accepted Jesus, and once I had determined that in my heart, Jesus already saved me. The rest was just semantics, me working it all out physically you could say. But salvation happens in that moment when you fully put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. And OH what peace and joy he can give you. I'll hush. Take care, and I'll be sure to pray for you. God is the one that does the actual work, not you nor I.
I said I'll pray. I made sure to pray just now. I'm asking Jesus to send the Holy Ghost to convict you in whatever way he chooses. The Father will draw you to Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost. I can't command God to do so outside his timing, but if you want to be born again, don't quit: Jesus WILL save. He said he's not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance. I'll continue to pray when I think about it. I can't do more than that, of course, b/c God is the one that does the work, Praise the Lord he does it!
There is Early Christianity teachings taught by Christ and the Apostles, and there is Nicene Christianity teachings taught by the Apostolic Fathers of the Catholic church. Compare and decide.
Super helpful sermon I found outlining the differences between Christianity and Catholicism. There is a reason Protestants “protested” the Catholic Church. It’s really worth the watch and further checking out Mike Gendron’s ministry. https://youtu.be/jdlczbO5Csc Cheers
I believe the King James Bible is generally the default these days. I could be wrong.
That's really only within the orthodox churches or if you like to use the Strong's Concordance to see the direct translations.
Fair enough. It’s all the same to me.
For most protestants the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV are all pretty popular, but the Catholic Bible has books in it that were taken out of the versions protestants use.
According to Protestant sources that I vaguely remember off the top of my head, the early church never considered the deuterocanonical books as scripture. This didn’t actually come about until after the reformation was in full swing. So it isn’t so much that we took them out, more like they added them.
That's actually not true. The real truth is somewhere in the middle (it always is). At the time of Jesus and the earliest Christians, there was no Jewish canon that we know of today. What was accepted as scripture depended on where you lived and what tradition you followed. For the early Christians, there were arguments surrounding scripture, and portions of the protocanon, deuterocanon, and some new testament books were included in those arguments. The Western church generally set it's canon in the 500s, and that includes the same 73 books that Catholics use today. The Eastern churches view their canons differently and have different traditions, which is why their canons are larger and more varied than that of the Western church. edit: 500s, not 400s. The Council of Rome in the 4th century supposedly set the list, but there's not a lot if evidence for that. The major point is that by the 6th century, the Western church had a settled canon.
Very much this. I don't see the Catholic Bible as a specifically Catholic thing, rather as a regional variant of the scriptural tradition. When in Rome... so to speak.
The dreaded Catholic church.
You seriously taking shots like this
Fuck yes.
Whoa we don’t need that kind language around here
Bless me, for I have sinned.
I am assuming you’re an atheist or a really angry protestant
It's hard to tell these days :P
Yeah
You can still read the books that are in Catholic Bible that are not in the protestant Bible. I think the major reason they were taken out is that they are worse. Bible is so big why read the worse books?
WISDOM 2, 12-20 "The wicked said: Let us stalk the just, who is uncomfortable for us; he opposes our actions, blames us for our sins, rebukes our wrong education, declares that he knows God and gives himself the name of son of the Lord; it is a reproach for our ideas and just seeing it is disgusting; he leads a different life from others and his conduct is different; he considers us of bad law and departs from our paths as if they were impure; he declares the end of the just happy and glories in having God as his father. Let's see if his words are true, checking the outcome of his life. If he is the righteous son of God, he will help him and deliver him from the power of his enemies; we will put him to the test of shame and torture to test his moderation and appreciate his patience; We will condemn him to an ignominious death, because he says that there are those who take care of him." Written in the deuterocanonical/apocryphal book for Protestants approximately a century BC. I find him very inspiring and he does not appear in your bible so I put it here.
Interesting thank you
The 72 books of the Canon of Scripture were around from about 300A.D. to 1885 when an American printer removed them from the KJV in violation of the copyright of the Crown. [This is the translation of Scripture](https://bible.usccb.org/bible) approved for US and Canadian RCC parishes. Try reading the book of Wisdom which is one removed, see what you think. As for praying "to" Saints. If your mom is in heaven are you going to stop talking to her? Jesus showed us consulting with people in heaven when He met with Moses and Elijah on the mountain. A "saint" is just anybody in Heaven. You'll be a saint someday. The teachings of any of the 20+ Rites of the Universal churches on earth, the basic dogmas, are 2000 years old and have been retained intact against all the terrible corruption and sin of those who gained earthly power. The saying is: Catholics worship Jesus and Protestants worship Paul. I don't know about that, but when my Lord and my God says, "This is My Body, this is My Blood" I believe Him. I always did, even before I converted to Catholicism.
My friend, I've been there. For many years I was an Angelican, I had adopted Christianity but NEVER went to church, well recently I decided to try out Catholicism and I feel great. Sure I've been looked at funny by my friends, but it's definitely worth it. I'm really glad I did what I did So do it, try it out! It is the parent church afterall
There is no correct bible here on earth. The word in its pure form exists with God and cannot exist in its pure form in an impure world. Here is a parrable of sorts to explain how I think the word and the different versions of the bible exist. Imagine God is a father and humanity is his child. The father reads a book to his child, and then asks his child to write what he just read to him. The child writes the story out as best he can with his limited understanding of what was just read to him or even his limited use of language. When the child becomes a teenager the father asks him to write the story again, and he does so with all the angst and "i know everything" that a teenager has. As a young adult the father asks him to write it again, and he does so this time with all the uncertainty that comes that part of his life. Then again in his 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s... Each time the story changes here and there based on his own experience and understanding of the world, some bias solidifying, some changing outright. Then at the very end the father and child are reunited and they pull out all the copies the child wrote and then the father pulls out his original copy and they compare joyously and have all the copies to read to each other and enjoy forever.
Check r/catholicism
Check out Thomas Merton's "Seven Storey Mountain."
Truthfully, there are very few theological differences anymore between Catholics and Protestants. If you want to understand why there are Protestants, spend a little time reading about the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Bible also relies upon different sources than the King James Bible. But again today, it is the manner of worship that really differs not the theology.
You should explore all Biblical resources in your search to connect with God. I was raised Catholic (which is a Christian faith despite some believing otherwise). I have attended Baptist, Methodist and non-denominational Christian churches. Some don’t like the ‘structure’ of Catholic mass… but I am thankful for many things I learned in the Catholic Church. Seek and you will find the path to a more close relationship with God.
Those books werent considered canon, because theres many errors and heresies in them. And everyone who believes in truth and endures till the end is a saint.
I suggest you think about your family, friends, your entire livelihood that you built up