Q. When did Catholics add books to the Bible?
A. They never did. The Jews and the Protestants removed books from the OT. The Catholic Church simply received the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures, from the Jews, at the time of Christ. This became known as the Old Testament. 70 years later, the Jews removed 7 Old Testament books from the Septuagint. The reason given for this was that they could no longer find those books in Hebrew.
Interestingly some of these books were being used to good advantage to make converts among the Jews. For example:
Bread From Heaven: God could have decided to save us in the way the Protestant Churches teach. Christ’s death COULD have sufficed completely, in the way Protestants believe and reject the necessity of absolute, real, material, holiness and perfection and purification…GOD COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO DO IT THAT WAY. And we admit that He certainly could have chosen to let us into Heaven putrid with sin but accept Jesus’ covering. But scripture would have been written very differently then, in that case.
It is not that we trample the scrifice underfoot. We simply submit to what the Church has always taught and believed.**
Comment: God DID choose to purify us through Christ’s death.
Response: So, you are completely pure? and sinless now? If not, then you have not been completely healed of the effects of original sin. You are still wounded.
Comment: I am concerned for your emphasis on what the “Church” teaches. You should truly focus on what God has taught us. The word of God which I have quoted mulitple times CLEARLY states that we are cleansed through the blood of Christ. Christ’s death has completed erased our sins and continues to do so.
Response: When we say, “The Church teaches….” It is no different than when someone says “The Bible teaches…” or “The Bible says…” The implication is clearly what we believe God is teaching.
Comment: If you say that we are not covered by his blood after our salvation, then you deny Gods omnipotence. For God is the same yesterday as he is today and remains for all eternity.
Response: I am denying God’s omnipotence only in your own imagination. It is uncharitable for you to denigrate my reverence for God just because I don’t interpret scripture the same way as you do.
Comment:1 John 1:7-9 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son CLEANSES us from ALL sin…..If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Response: OK, wonderful verse. But we both know that it does not intersect with reality as we know it, if we interpret it your way. The fact remains that, in spite of the fact that we sincerely believe in Jesus…we simply are not actually cleansed from ALL unrighteousness. We still sin.
But this verse does intersect with reality as we know it in ourselves when we examine the Catholic interpretation. Rather than absolutely ALL, the all in this verse must be talking about ALL (ETERNAL) CONSEQUENCES OF SIN/UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
Comment:1 John 2:1-2 And if anyone sins, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Response: I can only agree with this verse.
Comment:Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
Response: Again I agree. The CCC even says the purification of Purgatory is entirely different than the punishment of the damned/condemned.
Comment: Trust God, trust God’s word, Trust in His Holy Spirit to guide you. If anything goes against His word(the Bible), it is in error and is not to be trusted.
Response: I could not agree more. And there is nothing in the Catholic Faith that contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture. NOTHING. What the Catholic Faith contradicts in NOT Scripture but Protestant Interpretation of Scripture. That is something different.
But, this is so hard for Protestants to grasp because they are convinced that they are able to infallibly interpret scripture, even though they would never make this claim for themselves. That is what it boils down to. So, they also think they can infallibly judge the Catholic Church and any number of other churches, to be in error according to their private interpretation of scripture. I was a die hard sola scriptura Protestant. I could never have become Catholic if there were blatant contradictions of scripture. Catholic interpretation of Scripture is more credible because the writers in the very first century interpreted scripture the same way as the Church does today. The Protestant Churches have new and modern interpretations and there are so many variations among the Protestant sects it makes one dizzy.
Comment: Catholic tradition is unscriptural, and therefore blasphemous.
Response: Do you reject the verse below?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Where in Scripture does it say that we can only believe things about the faith that are in scripture?
Our Lord was a priest (Heb. 4:14); He was also celibate and called others to do the same. “And Peter said, ‘Behold, we have left all and followed You.’ And He said to them, ‘Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting.”‘ (Lk. 18:28-30) Abraham was called to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22); through celibacy the priest is called to sacrifice not just his son, but his wife. Our Lord teaches that not all can be celibate, but those who can should do so for the sake of the kingdom: “His disciples said to Him, ‘if the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry.’ And He said, “Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given -there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can.” (Matt. 19:10-12)
Celibacy is also a sign of the resurrection; we will all be celibate in the next world. Jesus says: “When people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but live like angels in heaven.” (Matt. 22:30) In imitation of Christ the priest is called to live this way here and now in this world. Elijah and John the Baptist, the two great prophets of the Old Covenant, were celibate. St. Paul even encourages celibacy among the laity. He writes: “It is good for the man not to touch woman. Yet for fear of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband – For I wish that you all were like me; but each one has his own gift from God, one in this way, and another in that – Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be freed. Are you freed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you take a wife, you have not sinned. He who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please God. Whereas he who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.” (1Cor. 7)
A champion of celibacy for the priesthood, Vatican II said: “Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven was recommended by Christ the Lord. This Sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood, and feels confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate to the priesthood of the New Testament, is liberally granted by the Father. And the more that perfect continence is considered by many people to be impossible in the world of today, so much the more humbly and perseveringly in union with the Church ought priests demand the grace of fidelity, which is never denied to those who ask.”
Celibacy is not unnatural, it is supernatural. It is a special grace from God. Our Lord created manhood, and as a man he lived it fully and naturally, as a celibate male. Celibacy is a sacrifice of the good of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. It is not for men who have no attraction for women. It is for men who do like women. If they don’t then there is no sacrifice in giving up marriage. Celibacy is unpopular with the world today because it is a sacrifice, and sacrifice for God is not what a hedonistic culture wants. The opinions of this world do not worry Our Lord who said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Jn. 18:36)
Am I alone in thinking that this would make a cool church? It would beat Oakland’s new cathedral, that is for sure!
Dutchman Johan Huibers’ ark is a fifth of the size of Noah’s and will carry farmyard animals. The total cost of the project is estimated to be just under 1m euros (£0.7m; US$1.2m) and was funded with bank loans.
Q. Why must the Catholic church add to the word of God by writing a catechism?
A. The Catholic Church is not adding to the word of God anymore than any commentary is adding to the word of God. Or an expositor of scripture is adding to the word of God. After all, the Bible is not a book of systematic theology, if it were there wouldn’t need to be books of systematic theology written. The Bible is a collection of histories, letters, poetry, apocalyptic writings. There is NOTHING systematic about the way the Bible presents theology except at times for differing lengths. But no one would say the Bible presents to us systematic theology. It requires a great deal of study and cross referencing and keeping hundreds of details and concepts organized.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is really a simple systematic theology written for every man.
Q. Yes, there is a point to summarizing the scriptures, but unfortunately, I do not see the catechism quoting much scripture. Every statement needs to be backed up with scripture.
A.Why does every statement need to be backed up with scripture? On what authority is this request made? There is no verse in scripture to this effect.
Q. Where is the scriptural teaching on much of what the Catholic church teaches?
A. But there is very much scripture in the CCC. It’s in the footnotes when it’s not in the text.
Roy H. Schoeman is an incredibly insightful author – one of my favorites. He wrote Salvation is From the Jews.
The thrust of one of his arguments is built from the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, Chapter 11. He points out that even though many of the Jews who lived during the time of Jesus rejected him as the Messiah, God still did not reject his people. This is something I have always agreed with but I have never been able to articulate it as well as Schoeman does. He points out that even though a stumbling block is placed in front of the Jews it is not so as to make them fall. They have been called into unbelief by God that the Gentiles might partake of their salvation, later they will be grafted back into the tree bringing yet more grace both to themselves and to the Gentiles. I really admire Mr. Schoeman because his argument for the fact is strictly scriptural and leaves practically no room for dispute, while mine has always been theological and leaves plenty of room for dispute.
Does Episcopalianism today look anything like what we read about here? Would an Episcopalian from 1931 PECUSA recognize 2008’s TEC?
Where will your church be in 20 years? What about 50? What about 78?
Which Church (like Jesus who is “the same yesterday, today and forever) is advocating the same, no matter how unpopular?
From TIME magazine:
Monday, Jan. 26, 1931
Birth Control
The American Birth Control League invited 30 Protestant Episcopal bishops to its convention in Manhattan last week. Not one bishop appeared, although their Triennial General Convention at Denver next September is certain to consider birth control in echo to the last Lambeth Conference of bishops of and affiliated with the Church of England, which discreetly approved the movement (TIME, July 14 & Aug. 25). Nonetheless there were several preachers of various denominations among the 200 delegates who attended the convention. Also-present were a few doctors. Conspicuously absent were women who revel in tales of their own childbearing, women too prudish to discuss procreation in any manner, Catholic women obedient to the Pope’s denunciation of any hindrance to conception (TIME, Jan. 19). Last week’s meeting lacked the vigor of previous conventions. Some speakers interpreted the Pope’s denunciatory encyclical as favorable to birth control. “It paves the way for the inevitable fight over what is one of the most important biological findings in history”—Professor Julian Sorell Huxley of London. Other speakers and a formal resolution politely denounced the recent White House Conference on Child Health & Protection (TIME, Dec. 1) for not mentioning birth control at all. Dr. Ira Solomon Wile of Manhattan called the White House Conference “a total, a complete and excellently devised demonstration of an ostrich policy. This is unjust to the ostrich, however, as it does not bury its head quite so deeply.” Otherwise the birth controllers were placid. They reiterated an old boast that their movement has been endorsed by various sectional conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Congregational Churches of Connecticut, the Universalist “General Convention, the American Unitarian Association, the Lambeth Conference. During ten years of formal organization Birth Control has developed an American League, state leagues in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; local groups in California. Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Maryland. North Carolina and Ohio; a Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control: and 58 big-city clinics for contraceptive advice.
In both Old and New Testaments, there are three ranks of priests, which are commonly referred to as the high priests, the ministerial priests, and the universal priests.
At the time of the Exodus the high priest was Aaron (Ex. 31:30), the ministerial priests were his four sons (Ex. 28:21; the sons were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, the first two of which were killed for abusing their priestly duties), and the universal priests were the people of Israel as a whole (Exodus 19:6). Read the rest of this entry »
Q. Does the title Mary the Mother of God mean that she existed before God ?
A. Absolutely not. She is fully human. During the early centuries a heresy arose concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. This heresy claimed that Jesus was not divine but only a human being. So, Christians coined the term “Mary, Mother of God” as a pithy way of affirming the authentic Christian doctrine that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. Logically, if Mary gave birth to Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God.
Q. Do Catholics worship Mary?
A. Absolutely not. Catholics worship God alone. The Church condemns the worship of Mary. So, anyone who worshipped Mary would be a heretic.
Q. Then why do Catholics kneel and pray in front of pictures and statues of Mary?
A. We are merely asking Mary to join her prayers to
ours as we make our request to God. We are simply
asking Mary, as a member of the body of Christ, to
pray for us.
Q. Aren’t we free to follow our conscience even if we disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
A. No. The true voice of our conscience is the law of God written on our hearts. If the “voice” of our conscience seems to be conflicting with Church teaching then it is NOT the actual voice of our conscience but the voice of Our Enemy enticing us away from the Truth. Unless your heart is completely hardened you will hear a still soft voice saying to your heart, “This is the Way, walk in it.” You will actually know which voice is True, if you sincerely try to discern the truth. But, you may not want to follow it, and so try to convince your self that the Other Voice is true, the voice of our culture is true, etc. “If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.”
Q. When Jesus said, “This is my body, eat it,” my friend says he was speaking symbolically?
A. No, that would be impossible. In the Aramaic language that Jesus spoke, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute and assault him. Did you know that there are several places in the Bible where “eating flesh and drinking blood” is used in a symbolic or metaphorical way? Lets take a look at what this phrase means when it is used metaphorically.
Psalm 27:2 When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me…” Micah 3:2-3you who hate good and love evil;…who eat my people’s flesh… Rev 17: 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. Rev. 17:16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
So, we see that when “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” is used metaphorically or symbolically in the Bible it means destruction and murder. And it is still true today. If you got a letter that said someone wanted “to eat your flesh and drink your blood” you would take it as an evil threat of some kind and not an invitation to loving communion. Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 but no one would know just what He had in mind until the Last Supper. Communion in His body and blood is literal but not cannibalistic. Jesus feeds us spiritually with Bread from Heaven. Only the faithful stayed with him. Only faith helps us believe Him.
Q. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is actually bodily present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist?
A. In John 6, After demonstrating His power to feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, Jesus tells his listeners seven times that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. The Jewish leaders and even some of Jesus’ followers rejected this teaching as preposterous and left him at this time, precisely because they understood Him to be speaking literally. One year later, Jesus instituted Eucharistic Communion (Mt. 26:26) saying of the bread, “This is my body” and also of the cup, “This is my blood.” From the beginning of Christianity, Church Fathers describe the mystery of the miraculous transformation of the Eucharistic meal into Christ’s Presence under the appearance of bread and wine.
Q. But how do we know for sure Jesus meant this literally?
A. We can ask ourselves, “What did the earliest Christians believe about communion?” The writings of the early Church Fathers tell us what these first century Christians believed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In 110 A.D. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught the Christian faith by the apostle John, wrote about the heretics of his day:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness raised up again.” Letter to the Smyrneans 6,2
Q. Is the Mass a communal meal or a sacrifice?
A. It is both. First, it is a re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. At the mass, the scrim of time is pulled away and we communally leave “Now” and enter the precincts of the Eternal. Everything looks normal. But, the spiritual reality is that we are transported “back in time” to the foot of the Cross, with Holy Mary and St. John, as well as, the angels and archangels. All present themselves to adore our Blessed Lord’s sacrifice at calvary.
And then, in obedience to Jesus, we partake of a communal meal of His body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.
“Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” John 6: 53-58
Q. Then, is Jesus dying over and over?
A. No. “For Christ… died for sins once for all” (I Peter 3:18)
The sacrifice of Christ happened once, in time, and is an historical fact. Unlike the sacrifices in the Old Testament, Christ’s sacrifice is eternal. It is we, who are in time, who must return over and over in thanksgiving to adore Him and be nourished for our journey to heaven.
Most people in the first world have at least a vague idea that the Catholic Church teaches that it is immoral for married couples to use unnatural methods of birth control, but very few understand why it teaches this way. One fundamental reason for accepting this teaching stems from John 14:26, the conviction that God Himself is the Author of the teaching against marital contraception. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by bfhu 
Am I alone in thinking that this would make a cool church? It would beat Oakland’s new cathedral, that is for sure!
Roy H. Schoeman is an incredibly insightful author – one of my favorites. He wrote 
The Office of New Testament Priest
The Black Cordelias 
