Bishops, Elders & Deacons

[Guest]

Good evening Chris,

Yes, I agree and as for "Dan" maybe it's the late hours staring at a screen. I meant TK.

The reason I keep berating the topic of Protestants and bundle you with them is basically because there is no way a Catholic Christian can have a theology discussion with a generic Protestant without the tenants of your belief. You pretty much know mine or at least can research them quickly via the Catechism or the Addendum to the Catechism or a number of other books. Catholics do not have that luxury....30,000 different doctrines are hard to write down. Every post by you is something new as to your belief system, ie, the 10 Commandments.

The reason I brought up the Lord's Prayer is because when I attended ORU we recited it at the 2x week service. It was there I found I had been saying it wrong for almost 30 years because I had been leaving out "For thine is the Power and the Glory, Amen". I had been saying "Deliver us from evil, Amen". Later, with all my reading after I returned to the Catholic Christian faith I realized a problem and quickly corrected myself.

Jesus' own word recorded in Matt 6:18 states it is "Deliver us from evil"...from the earliest known manuscript. Younger manuscripts (some 300 years) added "For thine is the Power and the Glory". It was a scribing error that added part of the Catholic Mass to a manuscript that was later used by Tyndale (Protestant 1512-35) who added this scribing error to his translation. Tyndale's Bible was then used by Coverdale, Thomas Matthew..all the way up to the KJV Bible. Where do we find the KJV Bible today? All over nearly every Protestant Church and Bible Study. I like to remind my Protestant brothers when they say "Catholics took away books" I simply say "At least we didn't add words the very lips of Jesus".

"For Thine is the Power and Glory forever" is actually from the Catholic Mass. It is recited by the Priest after we recite the Lord's Prayer. It is referred to as the Doxology ... Latin thing related to the Liturgy but this gives TK the creeps.

You see 99% of Protestants do not know where the "Word" they espouse as 100% truth came from and often recite falsehoods. The problem is not due to them but rather their elders who do not wish to know historical fact. Jehovah's Witness rewrote John 1 "In the beginning ....was a God"...try to tell them that "a God" is a mistranslation and they walk out of your house because like Mormons, in the bosom of their chest they believe it to be true. They also have an older person who takes the "trainee" out of this environment quickly so the trainee does not start asking questions. They deny historical fact.

Look at your Protestant Bible and I won't even go to the 7+ books that are missing. What do you have for the last Chapters of Mark? Do you have the Long version (16:9-20) the Short version (16:9) or the Freer ending? "Catholic Steve, does it really matter if we have the basic message?". Heck yes, it matters. Someone has got different parts in a Bible and are saying it is 100% truth. They are preaching "their" version of the truth. Please lets go on in a small history lesson for so many that say that history is not that important.

Protestants say that the Hebrew OT is the "true" text because it is written in Hebrew and its Jewish. The Catholic's use of the Greek Septuagint OT which parts are are in Greek, not Hebrew. Did you know that part of the most Jewish OT text, Daniel, was written partly in Aramaic? So, that Hebrew standard is out the door. How about the other standard that was used by the non-believing, Jesus hating, non-spirit filled, Jewish Pharisees's at the Council at Jamnia at 100AD? They used the standard that the Hebrew OT books had to be written before the time of Ezra ...oops, again, part of Daniel was written "after" Ezra. Even the Jews could not keep to their standards but because its such a huge Jewish book it at to be codified by this Jewish council. They used their standards to chastise ALL the Christian NT books...anything that pointed towards this "Jesus" person that was wrecking their faith. But, what do Protestants do? They (Protestant believing, loving Jesus, Christians) embrace the non-believing, Jesus hating, Jewish codified OT canon as TRUTH! Jesus is in heaven just shaking His head at that one.

Want more proof? Gonna hear it because this will give you insight for the reason of my returning to the Catholic Christian Church .... they have the Scriptures, all of them Old and New, codified/canonized by believing, Jesus loving Christians! Maybe that is why the Catholic Christians have some doctrinal beliefs that are different from the 30,000+ Protestants.

So the Hebrew OT (the part that the Protestant Bible states is 100% truth) is true and unadulterated, right? Well, correct me if I am wrong but Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ, right? Heck, its right there in our Protestant Bibles at Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.". Well, why don't you visit your local Jewish Synagogue or talk to a well read Rabbi. The Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 OT actually reads "Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel". "Oh but Catholic Steve, a virgin and young woman are the same to the Jews, it's a matter of semantics". Sorry, folks, wrong again.

The Jews have a distinct word for "virgin" and for "young woman", it is alma and betula, respectively. You see the Pharisaical Jews and the Jews of today, believe that the Christian belief of a "virgin" birth is considered Greek/Hellenistic myth ..... oh my gosh, it's the Greeks again! The only OT text that had the "virgin" birth as scriptural truth was the Greek OT Septuigent, not the Hebrew OT! So how in the heck did the Protestant Bible get virgin put in when its only in the Greek text? Well, quite easy. The early Protestants had to hybridize their OT text with "virgin" because a virgin birth is a critical point of Christians.

Still think you have a 100% Hebrew OT? "Oh Catholic Steve, I am having a hard time believing the above, maybe its simply a matter of word semantics". Semantics? Even when the Jews say otherwise? Well, then let me help you with numbers because there is nothing different in numbers. The Hebrew OT in Ezekial 45, when describing the dimensions of a Holy Temple place, states that it has a dimension of 10,000 cubits. The Greek Septuigent OT states that this dimension is 20,000 cubits! The Catholic Christian Bible has 7+ books that the Protestants do not have because they believe that non-believing Jews had the holy Spirit to guide them to codify/canonize Holy Scripture. The Catholic Christian OT has "virgin", not the Jewish language of a non-virgin young woman. The Catholic Christian OT Bible has a dimension of 20,000 cubits vs the Jewish 10,000 cubits. Now, what do you think the Protestant Bible has for those dimensions? Well, they have 20,000 cubits, so they again, took some more out of the Greek Septuigent OT because they didn't quite trust the Jews to have everything right!

WOWWEEEEEE! The Protestants don't have a Hebrew OT or a Greek Septuagint OT, they have a special "hybridized" OT in their Bible, a little of both...cafeteria style...pick & choose. Protestants chastise the Catholic OT because its not true but when no one is looking they will take pieces out of the Catholic OT as a matter of convenient theology.

Have a problem with a Catholic Christian making such assertions? Well, then how about believing one of your own .... one of the largest Protestant theologians, FF Bruce-Protestant, where he states that the Bible is a "Fallible collection of infallible books" ... boy, that settles my soul when I am worrying about my soul! I want an INFALLIBLE collection of INFALLIBLE books when I am dealing with my soul. FF Bruce goes on in Canon of Scripture, pg 50, "So thoroughly did the Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it". Boy, he got that right.

Hey, where in the heck is Sean, TK and Homer when I asked scriptural and historical questions? I thought someone was going to show me how Luther was spirit filled and was the foundational reason for Protestant beliefs from those darn Catholics. Some Protestants still "feel" that they are right because they do not want to read about scriptural history. Some tell me that "Father" is improper to call a priest yet it never appears in scripture. TK, are you saved? I challenged you to give me a scriptural reference to test being saved.

Here let me help you, look at Mk 16:15-18.... " He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Wow. Jesus tells us to preach. Be saved and tells us what signs will be with these believers (saved ones). They will drive out demons, tongues, hold snakes, drink poison and none of this will hurt them and they'll also heal the sick. Jesus doesn't say they will have only ONE sign but says "these [plural, all] signs will accompany" the believer. Afraid to place that scriptural standard to your born-again experience? It is convenient that many Protestant churches have tongues and healing and even some demon casting, but ask them to drink some poison or hold a poisonous snake .... I'll bet that would give you the creeps, huh, TK? "Oh but Catholic Steve, you are not supposed to test God". That I will agree with but scripture definitely tells us to test others and ourselves because many will pervert the truth and we are to make sure they are truly saved Christians and not playing with the Dark Side spirits.

Why do Catholic Christians feel that salvation is a work in progress and not a spiritual bang? Other than the many, many scripture verses and parables that show this, wasn't Abraham justified (saved) three times in scripture? The Scriptural passages are unmistakable... past, present and future. PAST: Gen 12:1-4 ... by FAITH called out to Ur, PRESENT: Gen 15: 5-6 ... Believed God about the descendants, FUTURE: Gen 22:1-14 ... Offered his son to the altar. It's just tough to believe it's a one time thing and then you are forgiven forever no matter what you do?! That isn't even scriptural because God is cutting branches of the believers out when they don't produce and bringing them in when he wants to...sounds like a work in progress to me.

OK, my friends. These are just some of the very small points I was hoping to bring out when someone would answer some of my questions. It seems that some Protestants find it better to live in what some want to believe is truth (like Mormons and JW) rather than give reason as scripture commands.

I will be with my Reserve Unit this weekend at Camp Pandleton. Sorry for all the berating from me, so you can all take a deep breath for now. We're all adults and can handle a little tough love, especially when Antioch had a tougher time and carrying our cross was never promised as easy. I will attempt to answer any comments on the backside of the weekend. Stand down, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but are you sure we are to obey all 600 OT commands? Surely not, that would be absurd.

[Cough, cough.]


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

there were many "conversion experiences" in the NT; 3000 or so on the day of pentecost, and of course many others. of course sanctification is a process, but there has to be a point of "entering."

as far as the first catholic masses I attended giving me "the creeps," i was just being honest. for the uninitiated, it is a rather foreign experience. and i dont see anything close to the catholic mass going on in the NT, but i must also admit there is not anything like a typical protestant service in the NT either.

TK

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

I will be with my Reserve Unit this weekend at Camp Pandleton. Sorry for all the berating from me, so you can all take a deep breath for now.

Don't need a deep breath, I'm doing just fine. You might want to to try a few. Deep breathing exercises can calm the nerves.

We're all adults and can handle a little tough love, especially when Antioch had a tougher time and carrying our cross was never promised as easy.

You see yourself as part of our cross? I thought that statement by Jesus referred to His followers being persecuted for their faith.

[Guest]

Hey, where in the heck is Sean, TK and Homer when I asked scriptural and historical questions? I thought someone was going to show me how Luther was spirit filled and was the foundational reason for Protestant beliefs from those darn Catholics.

Sorry, I don't have time to respond to everything you typed throughout this thread. I didn't really see a direct answer my original question(s)/concerns. Maybe I need to re-read your post. I don't see how pointing fingers at (say Luther) because of his life makes him wrong but the Catholic leaders are still right? I don't get it. Is Luther wrong or right in his protests against the catholic church because (or in spite of) of his sinful life? You said:

Is the Church perfect? No, and scripture does not promise that from even the leaders down into the followers. What remains constant is the generic code that there is ONE WORD, ONE SPIRIT until the end of time.

Maybe Luther fulfilled your point.

Thanks for the kind words, but I don’t think I’m any more reasonable than Homer or Sean and probably less so.

Watch out there! You tryin' to stumble me with pride?

[Guest]

OK, what was that? I need to keep my posts to [one or two points at a time]?

I thought I did by opening the post with Bishops & Priests and then somebody started straying away by opening other thread topics, case in point, someone started talking about NT writers vs the Church Fathers authority (the comparison was made so I have brought up many points of post NT writers, ie Church Fathers and Protestant ones like Luther, but no answer), then another blanket statement that the Church condemned/killed others because they did not agree with the Church (I asked for historical documents on that...none yet), another brings up a completely un-researched point about "Call no man Father" and in the same breath asks "why all the fancy robes and hats?" and another asks where do we get a Scripture "adorning" of [churches], while another tells me that being born-again must be a point of division because they have deepened their faith and now have a personal relationship with Christ (as if it does not happen in the Catholic Christian Church) and another does not understand the rhetorical point in a Socratic question related to an already previous statement/question related to Protestant OT beliefs (10 Commandments vs the 600+ Commands by God which was for my Protestant friend to enumerate on because he seemed to have a pick & choose attitude about OT things....I was not to enlighten anyone on God's commands. My Protestant friend was to do that for me), then he wants me to explain why Scripture says Jesus will come back to the Temple (how can I get any better than Scripture....Jesus promises to come back to the Temple...read it, its that simple. He does not abandon the Temple forever!) , then states I claimed to be a Church History expert (your assumption, I never said that. And if I were, then why aren't you listening unless you are the expert?) and finally in one last sentence he says "The church met almost exclusively ...." (Almost, you say? So they did meet in building, huh? ....with your own statement you admit there were buildings used in the Scriptural past, yet you appear to deny any church building use in today's NT Church, go figure) and finally I read.... "You set up many strawmen".

That got my attention. Are all the many above comments/threads (apart from Bishops & Priests) by my Protestant brothers also "strawmen"? You posed them and I tried to answer them. Yes, did I give you others, of course. I want to see if you know your Protestant history.

Since you want me to stay with one theme then lets go to this. Why is your Protestant Bible valid when it has hybridized its contents using the Hebrew OT text and parts of the Greek OT Septuagint text (non-inspired per Protestant standards)? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was always taught (Horizon, Vineyard, ORU) that my Protestant Bible was 100% truth and the Catholic OT was not because of the extra books, additions, etc. That being the case, doesn't the Protestant Bible also suffer the same fate (less than 100% truth) because it is adulterated with parts of the Catholic OT?

Peace Out. Catholic Steve



Dear TK,

You state: "....I dont see anything close to the Catholic Mass going on in the NT...." Well, I guess that would be understandable from someone that feels it gives them the "creeps". Therefore, I can hardly imagine you listening with open objective ears/heart. Like I said, it appears that neither you or your wife even knows how the Bible is read in the Mass.

Have you ever heard of the Protestant pastor Scott Hahn? He received B.A. in 1979 from Grove City College in Pennsylvania with a triple major of theology, philosophy, and economics (magna cum laude). He obtained his M.Div. (summa cum laude) from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1982. He earned his Ph.D. from Marquette University.

It is noteworthy in that he started out as a Presbyterian minister and theologian with ten years of ministry experience in congregations of the Presbyterian Church in America, and Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. So Pastor Hahn is no ones fool, but unfortunately, he is now Catholic.

After preaching against the Catholic Church for years his research brought him full circle back to the Catholic Christian Church. He is a prolific author and some of his best topics are the Catholic Mass in Scripture. Therefore, why repeat myself when Pastor Hahn does a better job.

How about this? I will send you two of his Books-on-Tape/Disc, so you don't even have to read them, just plug them into your car. Listen to them and then throw them away and then lets come back to this subject, OK? Then I would love to open that thread topic. Send me a PO Box address and I'll get them out to you tomorrow. Unfortunately, I think this is what will happen after a Protestant makes a glaring conclusion (nothing close to the Catholic Church in the NT) with no idea of what they are saying and when a Catholic tries to build a bridge of understanding I will be dropped cold.

I may be wrong but I feel you will decline my kind offer. Prove me wrong. Christ's Peace. Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Steve,

I have heard a set of Scott Hahn's messages several years ago, and wished greatly that he would debate me. His use of scripture was so abysmal that I could hardly believe he had ever been a Protestant scholar. It greatly decreased my respect for the quality of our seminaries!

I don't have his messages anymore, but I would love to have his books on CD if you wish to send them. I don't know what they cost you, but I will be glad to pay for them. My mailing address is at the website.

[Guest]

Dear Steve & TK,

So what's happenin'? I hope Tom is treating you all well at the Bible Study. That was fun. I will attend on my next visit and I'll bring soem treats. Its good to see you are well.

I am glad you are reading the posts. Boy, everyone is crying about my attitude but I am the one who should be putting on my flak jacket.

My offer is certainly open to you as well, but Scott Hahn has written so many books/tapes-CDs, been at so many seminars that it would be nearly impossible for me to get those for you without selling my family. Go to www.scotthahn.com or to www.salvationhistory.com for a review of his material. Let me know what you need and I’ll do my best to get it to you ASAP. His site also has contact info for debates. I will contact some sources for a potential discussion. I am sure Scott does not like “debates” but a possible round table may be enjoyable. Give me some time on that.

As for the directed post to TK, my offer holds to TK and he can make up his on own mind as he checks scripture with the points that Scott presents. As TK states he has never seen the mass in the NT, I will show him with the help of Scott Hahn and not waste everyone's time on the posts. Again, I have doubts that my offer will be accepted.

I also await a discussion on the better focused topic I presented in my last post. It was Sean, Homer and TK that told me to calm down, take a deep breath and stay focused so I’ve calmed down, went through my Lamaze deep breathing and focused on one topic and now I wait.

Christ’s Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Since you want me to stay with one theme then lets go to this. Why is your Protestant Bible valid when it has hybridized its contents using the Hebrew OT text and parts of the Greek OT Septuagint text (non-inspired per Protestant standards)? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was always taught (Horizon, Vineyard, ORU) that my Protestant Bible was 100% truth and the Catholic OT was not because of the extra books, additions, etc. That being the case, doesn't the Protestant Bible also suffer the same fate (less than 100% truth) because it is adulterated with parts of the Catholic OT?

Peace Out. Catholic Steve

While I certainly believe that the 66 books found in the protestant bible I have are valid, I don't have a problem with the Catholic bible either. I mean, why should I? For many years the early church didn't have a compilation of all the books we have.

Also, I would love to have the Greek OT in my bible instead of the Hebrew! This doesn't mean that I believe the Hebrew is invalid though. I mean, what was the source of the Septuagint?

[Guest]

Dear Sean,

I would love to take off on another thread question (Septuagent) but I am afraid that TK and Homer will get mad at me for not staying on subject. Let's focus.

Maybe this will help me understand "your" (not Homer, TK or Chris ‘cause from what I can gather they do not hold to Protestant standards) idea of truth and scriptures. I was taught as a Protestant Evangelical that the Bible was 100% truth because it was "God Breathed". That other Bibles, ie, JW and Catholic, were adulterated with untruths, therefore they can not be 100% God Breathed.

You said "I don't have a problem with the Catholic Bible either. I mean, why should I?" That is a simple answer. The reason is as simple as the 7 + books that the Catholic Bible states are "God Breathed" (opposed to the Protestant's 7 less). Did you know this? These 7+ books confirm some Catholic Doctrine that is in complete opposition to Protestant doctrine. If you don't have a problem, then I assume than you would not have a problem accepting that the Catholic Bible is God Breathed, ie, Truth, therefore these Catholic Doctrines are truth/God Breathed.

So help me again. You still don't have a problem with the Catholic Bible when taking the above into account? The only other way I can read this otherwise is that you consider neither the Catholic or Protestant Bibles as God Breathed, merely a "collection" that took 100's years to get this way.

Blessings, Catholic Steve