Ok, I have been coming to this site to get some answers, you would think after being a cradle Catholic that I would know all the answers, no that is not the case. I followed the rules, did CCD, first comm, first rec, conformation, classes for getting married and getting married to a catholic man, both my kids were baptized and my oldest had his first comm. That is where I started to question everything. I started to search web sites and asking questions. Most of the time anyone who was catholic either didn't have time to help, or just said because that is the way we do things, some of them couldn't even explain why they did the things they do. My opinion of catholics has become that they are stuborn, old, and very unfriendly. That opinion has not changed here at this web site. I posted questions that seemed to disappear. I read answers to others posts and most of you come down on them hard. Could you see God yelling at you for asking a question? or worse ignoring you? Most of you refer to a book called canon book of law, why do you need another book other then the Bible. Why is there no Bible in church?, someone asked that and I believe part of the answer was, "it was a distraction"!! no way, ha!, how can you take someones word for what's in the Bible, unless yu read it right there for yourself. Oh ya, why is it that the pope has this huge, glorious building with gold trim and marble. Jesus lived as a carpenter, he could build a huge place, but his teachings were his life, not a huge, golden house. If anyone of you choose to respond with answers, please let them be out of the Bible. I would like to look them up. thanks and I will pray for you. Oh yes, about the question that somehow got lost, If pergatory is non-biblical, why do catholics believe in it. Has anyone ever read Revalations?

-- Stephanie Kinslow (smk31329@aol.com), June 30, 2003

Answers

Stephanie,

As Catholics, we do, in a way, have the Bible in our Church. It is the Missal. Did you know, that over the course of the three year cycle of readings at Mass, Catholics pretty much read the entire Bible? Much of the Mass comes directly from the Bible. In your Missalette or Worship book at church, the majority of the hymns we sing are based upon the Bible.

Concerning purgatory, it was my understanding that it is in the Bible, in Macchabees. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

As for Catholics, I am sorry you have had a bad Catholic experience. I can assure you that most Catholics are not stubborn, old, and unfriendly. Heck, I'm going to be 38 in less than a month, which qualifies me as old in terms of sports, but certainly young in terms of life. My question to you - have you asked God for the answers you seek? I am infering from your post that you have asked a lot of people, but have you asked God? He will lead you to the answers you seek. The path may not be straightforward, and there will likely be some bumps along the way (such as the stubborn, old, and unfriendly Catholics), but please be patient, and be open to God. He will lead you to the right people to answer your questions.

I will, however, suggest one thing to help you. Go and pick up any book or audio tape by Scott Hahn.

Pax et Bonum.

Thomas

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), June 30, 2003.

Hi Stephanie,

First of all, I'm not very old. (I'm not saying anything about being stubborn or unfriendly!) I'm glad you asked these questions, because it's important for everyone to know the truth about the Catholic Church. Take it easy on the forum, though. I think they like to play "good cop/bad cop" and the "bad cops" are always noisier.

We refer to the Catechism and Canon law in order to "be one, as the Father and I are one." If there was no well-defined way to interpret the Scriptures, we would be shattered and divided, as are Protestants. In this way, we can be sure to be following the teachings of the apostles, passed down through the centuries and confirmed in council after council, and not accidentally making up stuff as we go along. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Every time we go to Mass, we have the Bible read to us. If we are literate and have a missal or a Bible with us, we can read it ourselves. I don't know who told you that the Bible was a distraction, but they are mistaken; Scripture and Tradition are the foundation of the Catholic Church, and if you get rid of Scripture, there isn't a lot to go by. (I can't give you a verse of the Bible proving that I hear the Bible at Mass. Sorry.)

The "huge, golden house" you're talking about doesn't belong to the Pope. Actually, the Pope has never even had a personal bank account. We believe that he is Christ's representative on earth, and it is out of respect for Christ that we build cathedrals and other "huge and glorious buildings." You can compare it to the temple that Solomon built.

Last of all, purgatory is biblical. There is a thread somewhere and someone posted a link to a really great site (Stephen?) where it is explained very well.

By the way, yes, I've read Revelations. When I was a kid, I think that was my favorite book. Drama, suspense, action... It's all there.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 30, 2003.

Aaugh, you beat me, Thomas!!!

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 30, 2003.

Older but quicker Catherine!!

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), June 30, 2003.

Once again, I state that purgatory is not biblical. Christ's sacrifice was paid in full. This post will probably get deleted since I'm 'catholic bashing'. It's truley amazing how Catholics treat the bible, when they talk to a skeptic it's "The prefect written word of God". One reason they do that is because a skeptic will laugh in their face if they mention "Were the true church, We have sacred tradition". But when they talk to a Protestant, "Your bible is not complete", "Sacred Tradition is the other half of God's word"(that cannot be proven without a tape recording) Agh when will they learn. What? Stop reading history that's researched by protestants? Ok, I'll just go read some history that's researched by catholics.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 30, 2003.

Actually, David, purgatory is explicitly taught in the books of Macabees . . . you know, the ones your forefathers took out. Oooh, tampering with the Word of God! Yikes, wouldn't wanna be in their shoes. Purgatory is also alluded to strongly in Corinthians and in several parables of Jesus. (Too late to look up the sites).

And purgatory was most definitely taught throughout Church History dating ALL THE WAY BACK! So, David, YOU are off the beaten path with a corrupted canon, sort of like being lost in the wilderness with only half a map, or up a creek with only half a paddle!

Gail

-- David (rothfarms@socket.net), June 30, 2003.

I never said that it wasn't taught for so many years, I just said it is unbiblical. It is based on books that don't even sound inspired, and contradict other books in the bible(i.e. Deut.)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 30, 2003.

OK, so I looked up Pugatory and this Macabees but can not find them anywhere please tell me the version of Bible since I looked it up in the KJV and found nothing. Catherine Ann, you said "If there was no well-defined way to interpret the Scriptures, we would be shattered and divided, as are Protestants." if you just believed how someone else interpreted the Bible, then how do you know thier way is the right way? Yes, Thomas, I think God just kinda pointed me to start asking questions, Things just did not add up, I had to many questions. I have put all my faith in the Lord and when He is ready for me I will take the road less traveled. Steph

-- Stephanie Kinslow (smk31329@aol.com), June 30, 2003.

Dear Stephanie,

You say "you would think after being a cradle Catholic that I would know all the answers, no that is not the case. I followed the rules, did CCD, first comm, first rec, conformation, classes for getting married and getting married to a catholic man, both my kids were baptized and my oldest had his first comm. That is where I started to question everything"

A: Questioning is good. It's how we learn. Unfortunately, many Catholics do not know their faith very well. And ex-Catholics never knew the faith very well, for no-one who understands the Holy Catholic Faith could ever leave it for anything less. And anything else is far, far less.

"I started to search web sites and asking questions. Most of the time anyone who was catholic either didn't have time to help, or just said because that is the way we do things, some of them couldn't even explain why they did the things they do"

A: Web sites are not a very reliable source of truth. Some may be, but a great many are not. The Bible tells us where truth can be found. It says that the Church Jesus founded is the pillar and foundation of truth. This means that taking the Church out of the picture causes the truth to collapse and break up. That's what a foundation and pillars do - give form and shape and strength.

"My opinion of catholics has become that they are stuborn, old, and very unfriendly. That opinion has not changed here at this web site"

A: Well obviously any opinion about a billion people, based on experiences with a handful of examples is invalid. Some Catholics are old. Some are young. Some are stubborn, some not. Some are unfriendly, but probably most are not. Just like some Protestants, wouldn't you say? But all of this is irrelevant. The Church Jesus founded for all men remains the one Church Jesus founded, even if ALL its members are old, stubborn, and unfriendly. I would rather be in the Church Jesus founded, with a bunch of ornery old folks than to be in an unauthorized manmade church with a bunch of friendly youngsters. Because it isn't friendliness that sets us free. It is truth.

"I posted questions that seemed to disappear"

A: Please review the rules of the forum. If any posts are deleted, it is because they are clear infractions of the forum rules.

"Most of you refer to a book called canon book of law, why do you need another book other than the Bible"

A: Because the Bible does not include specific rules and regulations for the running of the Church. That's what canon law is about. The Word of God, including the Bible, is the source of doctrine (Christian beliefs). Canon law covers practical questions about church matters. Every church has such rules and regulations, or it could not function as an organization, with everyone doing their own thing, and no guidelines for consistency of action.

"Why is there no Bible in church?, someone asked that and I believe part of the answer was, "it was a distraction"!! no way, ha!, how can you take someones word for what's in the Bible, unless yu read it right there for yourself"

A: Catholics do read the Bible for themselves. But Mass is not the place for personal scripture study. Do you sit in church reading your Bible while your pastor is giving a sermon? Surely it would distract you from the sermon if you did. At a Catholic Mass, something infinitely more profound and spiritual takes place than at any non- Catholic service. Jesus Christ Himself becomes present, not just in some vague spiritual sense, but His actual body and blood are there before us, and become part of our own body and blood! In the presence of such a miraculous event, anything else, even the Bible, is indeed a distraction. However, during other parts of the Mass, scripture is read and sung, and prayers based on the scriptures are said together. So the Bible plays a major role in every Mass, but again it is not the time and place for private Bible reading.

"why is it that the pope has this huge, glorious building with gold trim and marble. Jesus lived as a carpenter, he could build a huge place, but his teachings were his life, not a huge, golden house"

A: In fact, the Pope is probably the poorest man on earth. He doesn't even own his own clothing. the Church does care for him, and for the rest of our clergy, for as the Bible says, the worker is worthy of his support (Matt 10:10). What the Pope gives to us is priceless. Our concern with his needs is paltry by comparison.

"If anyone of you choose to respond with answers, please let them be out of the Bible"

A: Where did you get this idea that everything has to come out of the Bible? Can you offer a bible verse to back up that notion? If not, I must conclude that the idea is just another manmade tradition, in which case I don't see why you keep insisting upon it.

"If pergatory is non-biblical, why do catholics believe in it"

A: Well, there are several answers to that question. First of course is the fact that Jesus never said everything has to be "biblical". This refers back to your previous question. I hope you can supply that verse. Secondly, there are several passages that relate to the idea that a form of purification is necessary before people are ready for heaven. Some of the strongest biblical teaching about Purgatory is missing from your Bible, since it is in one of the books of Holy Scripture that the founder of your tradition tore out of the Word of God and threw away. But it is still in the complete and original Bible as used in the Catholic Church. Even so, several passages in your own Bible indicate a place of purification after death. Thirdly, every Bible, even yours, repeatedly states that the Church has full authority to teach; that the Holy Spirit guides it to all truth; that the church is the foundation of truth; that listening to the Church is equivalent to listening to God. Therefore, the fact that a doctrine is taught by the Church is the surest guarantee that the teaching is true - that's what the Holy Bible says.

"Has anyone ever read Revalations?" \

A: Yes, I have read Revelation. Notice Rev 21:27, which states that nothing unclean can enter into God's presence - one of several passages indicating the necessity for purification before entering heaven.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

What rules? I have yet to read them.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 30, 2003.

You said "one of several passages indicating the necessity for purification before entering heaven. " "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ, John 14:6

-- Stephanie Kinslow (smk31329@aol.com), June 30, 2003.

Dear Stephanie,

Purification in Purgatory IS coming to the Father by Jesus, for it is only His death on the cross and His resurrection which merited the graces of salvation for us - and it is ONLY the recipients of that grace - the SAVED - who are purified in Purgatory. I'm sure if you think about it, you will realize that the saved cover quite a range of spiritual growth and spiritual health. Some may have responded to God in fullness, giving over their whole lives and all their possessions to His service - as the apostles did. As Saint Francis and Saint Domenic and Saint Theresa did. And Mother Teresa. Others live average Christian lives, go to Church, maybe sing in the choir, and live good moral lives, but maybe have a number of priorities that come before God in their daily lives. Such people will be saved, but surely they are not on the same level spiritually as those I mentioned above. The Bible reveals that the salvation of such people will involve some additional purification ... "each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet SO AS THROUGH FIRE. (1 Corinthians 3:13-15). The cleansing fires of Purgatory are not a "second chance" at salvation. Salvation is decided at the moment of death. Purgatory is for the saved, that they might be presented to the Lamb as spotless offerings, free of every blemish ... Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless" (2 Peter 3:14) How good is our God, that those who are found to be somewhat less than spotless and blameless are not cast into the lake of unquenchable fire, but are lovingly purified and made ready to assume their eternal place before the throne of the Lamb!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2003.

Stephanie - The Catholic Church in the U.S. uses the New American Version. This is an excellent Bible. Another good one is the Haper-Collins Study Bible. It was translated by many different Biblical Scholars from many different universities. These people are also of different faiths so you don't get one religion's interpretation. The KJV is horrible. Most scholars would say that that is probably one of the worst translations of the Bible. The reason that you could not find Maccabees in the KJV is because it is a protestant bible and they took some of the books out to follow the rabbinic movement in the Jewish religion.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Scott.
I have some comments on two of the Bible versions that you mentioned.

You wrote: "The Catholic Church in the U.S. uses the New American Version. This is an excellent Bible."

I just want to clarify, for others' benefit, that when you say that the "Catholic Church ... uses" the NAB, you mean that its official liturgical books include texts taken from the original (1970) NAB [for the Old Testament] and from the Revised NAB (c. 1985) [for the New Testament]. Catholics are free to read privately, though, from any approved Catholic version (and there are several). One of these, of course, is the NAB. I have had a 1970 NAB for almost 20 years. Unfortunately, it has some undependable ("less than Catholic") footnotes.

Later, you wrote:
"Another good one is the Harper-Collins Study Bible."

I could see that you were referring to a publisher's name, not an actual Bible version/translation name. Since I was unfamiliar with this edition, I wanted to find out which translation it included. I found this:

"The HarperCollins Study Bible offers the full text of the New Revised Standard Version ..."

Reading that raised a "red flag" for me. I knew that, while the Catholic Edition of the old (1952) RSV is very good [many say "the best"], the New RSV [NRSV] has problems. To let you know about these problems, I searched for, and found the following at two Internet sites:

------------------ QUOTE #1 --------------------
"The New Revised Standard Version [was] published in 1990. ... In the preface to this revision, Bruce Metzger, chair-person of the revision committee, wrote: 'The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952, which is a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901. ... The need for issuing [the NRSV,] a revision of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible arises from three circumstances: (a) the acquisition of still older biblical manuscripts, (b) further investigation of linguistic features of the text, and (c) changes in preferred English usage.'"
[Notice item "(c)" just above. It is "code language" for ... "We needed to employ feminist (misnamed "inclusive") and other politically correct language."]
-------------------- END QUOTE #1

-------------------- QUOTE #2
In a press release of October 25, 1994, the Catholic News Service reported that the Vatican "has rejected the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] of the Bible for use in liturgical and catechetical texts, after doctrinal officials found fault with its use of inclusive language."

It is clear, when one considers the facts, that this decision of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was fully warranted. The NRSV is not a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but a propagandist version, which mirrors the feminist ideology.

Bruce Metzger, the chairman of the Commission which produced the version, makes this clear. One object of the translators, he writes in the preface, was to eliminate the linguistic sexism and the masculine bias of earlier translations.

"Linguistic sexism," like "patriarchy," and "sexism" in general, is a myth, created for the purposes of political propaganda, by feminists. These women appear to have a profound dislike of men and strive to have the word man eliminated from every text in which it occurs.

A recent article in the Canadian journal Catholic Insight (January /February 1995) by Dr Thaddeus Pruss notes that this has led to the replacement of "man" in the NRSV by no fewer than thirty different expressions, all with their own "specific places, and often very different connotations." Such an approach betrays a basic linguistic ignorance - or worse.

"Historically," writes Dr Pruss, "in all Teutonic languages, including English, the cognates of the word man had the two-fold meaning of 'human being' and 'adult male human being'. The history of English literature shows that the dualistic nature of the word man has been inherent in the English language for about a thousand years. In fact, every language contains ambiguities and words of multiple meanings. With age and experience, people of normal intelligence learn to cope with these, unless for political reasons they choose not to." ...

Thus the NRSV's elimination of "man" in its generic sense can constitute a puerile departure from idiomatic English. We have an example of this in Luke 5:10, where "fishers of men" has been changed into "fishers of people." Even more ridiculous is the change of "man" into "adult" in 1 Cor 13:11, which suggests that St Paul could just have easily been a woman!

More serious is the elimination of some Messianic texts from the Old Testament. Thus Daniel 7:13 contains the phrase "Son of man" which Christ habitually used to designate himself. But in the NRSV, we no longer read "Son of man", but "a human being."

Even worse is the mistranslation of Psalm 8, where, as often in the NRSV, singular nouns are rendered in the plural. There we read, not, "What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou dost take care of him?" (as in the Revised Standard Version), but "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?" This mistranslation has disastrous consequences, for the text of Psalm 8 is quoted in Hebrews 2, where the writer is intent on establishing the divinity of Christ, in whom man's sovereignty over creation is fully realised. ...

We may be quite sure that Orthodox Jews or Muslims would not allow their respective sacred texts to be dealt with as the Bible has been dealt with in the NRSV. The ordinary Christian wants to hear the Word of God as it is in the Bible. He will do so if what is read is the Revised Standard Version - recently reprinted by Ignatius Press - or the Jerusalem Bible. Not, however, if it is the NRSV.

Dr Pruss sums up well the fundamental flaws of the NRSV: "The NRSV is unfaithful to the original inspired texts, and the verses cited above are but some of the many examples of this. The new translation depersonifies the human person by replacing him with his various non-essential attributes. The NRSV's language is contrary to the English literary tradition. And, finally, use of the NRSV-censored Bible in liturgy would divide English-speaking faithful from Roman Catholic liturgy everywhere else in the world. The question about the NRSV is a fundamental one: whose word is it? Is it the word of God, carrying a timeless and transcultural message? Or is it the word of a political compromise under pressure and in the name of gender sensitivity of the times? The confusion of politics with Revelation encroaches on the rights of the Author Who is in Heaven."

[The author of the above, Fr G.H. Duggan, S.M., is a retired New Zealand seminary professor, and author of the apologetics book, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt', Daughters of St Paul. This article was published in "AD2000" Vol 8 No 5 (June 1995), p. 11]
---------------------------- END QUOTE #2

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Excellent, John. Excellent!

rod... . . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2003.

"Books that don't even sound inspired" ! Mr. Ortiz seems to be using as criteria of credibility whatever makes him feel good!

Reading Paul's letter to Philemon...inspired text - yet, it doesn't "sound inspired"! It reads like it is: a letter to a friend.

Yet the Church declared that that letter is scripture while other letters are not!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 01, 2003.

Thank you all who have posted. I will look further into these answers and other versions of the Bible. All of you have helped and have shown me the kindness that I knew was somewhere inside. Until other questions arise I will be around. Thank you all again, and God Bless you all. Steph

-- Stephanie Kinslow (smk31329@aol.com), July 01, 2003.

Read the Fathers of the Church. Gail mentioned the series awile back, I believe. They are a TREMENDOUS link to the Apostles. You will see the Catholic Church in their writings and you will also get a feel of the fluidity of teachings even present then yet the simultaneous call to orthodoxy those early pillars of the Church were and why they are so fundamental to Catholic Christianity.

Anyone who thinks the Churchmen throughout history were always on good terms or in constant agreement is ignorant even of an overview of history. I would love to have been a fly on the wall of some meetings among bishops that must have gone on. The sparks must have flown.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Thanks John. That is very interesting. I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for the insight.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

You're welcome, Scott.

I just want to thank and compliment Thomas and Catherine Ann, who enthusiastically were the first two to answer Stephanie's opening message. (T. and C.A., it is so nice to have your "new blood" pumping through the forum's veins. We need your insights and facts!)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

I found the review of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Dr. Pruss interesting, particularly the introduction; “… In fact, every language contains ambiguities and words of multiple meanings. With age and experience, people of normal intelligence learn to cope with these, unless for political reasons they choose not to." I would suggest that Dr. Metzger, along with his colleagues on the translation team would agree with the statement.

The value of translation, whether sacred or secular, is to convey the meaning of what is written by the author to the present reader. If there is a non-essential (regarding theological or philosophical content) cultural bias (racial, gender, national, etc.) in the writer’s language then that bias can, and I would say, should be neutralized (and noted).

An example of this would be the ancient Greek and Roman habit of identifying all foreigners as “barbarians.” If, in the, the context of a passage using the word “barbarian,” simply means, “people of foreign birth,” and not “savage, primitive, or uncivilized,” then the better word for the English translation would be “foreigner,” with ‘barbarian’ in the footnote.

Dr. Pruss’ criticisms seem to focus on the priority of gender rather than translation. In Luke, he objects to “fishers of people.” Since it is obvious from Jesus’ ministry that women were also called to the Kingdom of Heaven, the meaning is people and not just men (even though it creates a problem for a few Sunday School songs).

Likewise in 1 Cor 13:11, St. Paul is making a comparison to his age and not his gender. Paul’s gender had already been firmly established.

Daniel’s use of the “son of man,” is always used to distinguish between the “beasts” and God’s “human being.”

Again, the use of “human beings” in Psalm 8 is within the passage’s context and does not change the meaning or use of the quote in Hebrews. The objective of the Hebrews passage is to affirm the humanity of Jesus. The only difficulty that could be cited for Psalm 8 is moving from singular to plural, but that can be accepted because of the lack of a singular gender-neutral personal pronoun in English. As I said before, it does not change the meaning.

Completely ignored by the review is the fact that the NRSV identifies and footnotes each of the updated passages. Both Drs. Metzger and Pruss approach the text with theological and linguistic assumptions. I would suggest that the assumptions of Dr. Metzger and associates helped them do a very good job of translating the scripture into modern language and culture, allowing the meaning to be understood without introduction or use of archaic English language forms. By noting each transliteration, there is no danger of misunderstanding of the intent.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), July 03, 2003.

Taking specific linguistic anomalies into account (such as your example of barbarians vs. foreigners) surely helps modern readers to understand the original intent of a passage. This valid aspect of translation however cannot be compared with the linguistic mayhem which has been brought to bear on the Word of God by self-seeking special interest movements, particularly radical feminism. "Fishers of people" is plain stupid. "Men" and "mankind" are now and always have been legitimate non-gender specific terms which encompass the entire human race.

Likewise the Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees as "whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness" (Matt 23:27)

And Mark: "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of people, and whatever blasphemies they utter" (Mark 3:28)

And Luke: "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired people." (Luke 15:19)

And John: "But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all people" (John 2:24)

"having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:31)

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all people, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all people" (Romans 5:18)

Passages like the above do violence to the text, destroying the natural flow of the passage. They sound artificial and stilted, because that's just what they are. The use of "human beings" in such passages is even worse than using "people". "Men" does the job quite nicely, as it has done ever since the scriptures were first translated into English.

Of course the examples noted above are merely the tip of the iceberg. Some of the changes which hard core feminists have tried to impose on the Word of God go far beyond mere silliness and disruption of flow. Particularly those which attempt to avoid using masculine references for God ...

"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly God will also forgive you" (Matthew 6:14)

"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My God who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33)

"Now suppose one of you parents is asked by his/her son for a fish; he/she will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he/she? (Luke 11:11)

"I and the One in heaven are one." (John 10:30)

"In the house of God are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2)

And of course, my all-time favorite ...

"Our God who art in heaven ..." Or worse ... "Our Parent who art in heaven".

If this nonsense is allowed to continue, nonsense quickly becomes absurdity, and absurdity progresses to outright heresy. Fortunately the bishops are currently taking steps to avoid such abuses of the Scriptures. It would have been better if they nipped it in the bud rather than allowing such idiocy to progress this far. But at least steps are being taken.

AMEN!

Oops, I mean APEOPLE!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 03, 2003.

Jmj

Bravo, Paul! That was outstanding. I certainly hope that our visiting protestant pastor, Mr. Fretz, comes back to read it. He is so terribly wrong.

But worse than being wrong, I find Mr. Fretz's comments offensive. As was clearly quoted in my previous message, "In a press release of October 25, 1994, the Catholic News Service reported that the Vatican 'has rejected the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] of the Bible for use in liturgical and catechetical texts, after doctrinal officials found fault with its use of inclusive language.'"

In light of that action of the Vatican and the fact that this is a Catholic discussion forum, I think that it is highly improper for Mr. Fretz to contradict the Vatican and try to tempt us to reject the Holy Father's decision by saying the following ...

----- "If there is a non-essential (regarding theological or philosophical content) cultural bias (racial, gender, national, etc.) in the writer’s language then that bias can, and I would say, should be neutralized (and noted)."
[Notice that, besides contradicting the Church, Mr. Fretz wrongly implies that the primary author of scripture, the Holy Spirit, allowed error ("cultural bias") to be present in the Word of God.]

----- "The only difficulty that could be cited for Psalm 8 is moving from singular to plural, but that can be accepted because of the lack of a singular gender-neutral personal pronoun in English."
[Notice that, besides contradicting the Church, Mr. Fretz (indoctrinated by radical feminist teachers?) seems completely unaware of the fact that "him" (in this context) has always been "a singular gender-neutral personal pronoun" in English.]

----- "... the assumptions of [the NRSV's] Dr. Metzger and associates helped them do a very good job of translating the scripture into modern language and culture"
[Once again, a direct contradiction of the Church, which tells us that the NRSV is so unreliable that it cannot be used in liturgy and catechetics.]

God bless you.
John
PS: Rod, thanks for your earlier compliment!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Dear Paul, Thanks for your response. I understand your comfort level with the flow of previous translations. However, similar arguments were offered to me by those who look to the King James Version as the only scripture they really feel ‘sounds like’ God’s Word (I do know your criticisms of the KJV – I am just using it as an example).

I would ask, what theological problems would you cite from your first list of scriptural quotes?

As to the second list, you almost give the impression that these are in the NRSV. For others reading this thread – those quotes are not in the NRSV. To my knowledge, anywhere that gender is significant to meaning for a theological construct, the gender pronoun is maintained. The attributes of God as Father and Jesus as Son are not removed.

I too have heard of “Our Divine Parent, who is in heaven…” I don’t use it, and I generally find the people who are radically for it (and for that matter, against it) not very enjoyable – or illuminating - people to speak with. However, that is not at issue with the NRSV.

If there are other passages you have discovered that trouble you or have been raised by Roman Catholic scholars (including those that don't have anything to do with gender), I am always interested is hearing what others have to say. Translation is always an ongoing conversation.

John, I have too many Roman Catholic friends (including priests) to be insulting to the Vatican. However, respect and agreement is not necessarily the same thing – as the Vatican itself has said when dealing with those who have different religious traditions than its own. And, so, I extend to you that same respect – whether you return it or not- in honor of those Christian friends.

Peace.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), July 05, 2003.

Jmj
Good day, Mr. Fretz.

You wrote: "I have too many Roman Catholic friends (including priests) to be insulting to the Vatican."

First, I consider it a favor when people use the official term to refer to what I am: "Catholic." I am not a "Roman Catholic" (a term invented in 16th-century England to disparage Catholics).

Second, you may not have intended to "insult ... the Vatican", but I stand by what I said earlier -- i.e., that your message was not something proper for a protestant clergyman to post here, under the circumstances. I wrote:
"In light of that action of the Vatican [banning the use of the NRSV in liturgy and catechetics] and the fact that this is a Catholic discussion forum, I think that it is highly improper for Mr. Fretz to contradict the Vatican and try to tempt us to reject the Holy Father's decision by saying the following ... [etc.]"

I had no interest whatsoever in your contradictions of the pope, Mr. Fretz, and I sought to protect myself and my fellow Catholics from your temptations that we disagree with the pope.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 09, 2003.

I pray for you, instead of looking to men for salvation I think you should seek God with all your hearts and He will teach you all things from His Word. I really recommend the movie "Luther" Now there was a monk that changed the world, God used him to give us religous freedom! You do have to admit the church was pretty corrupt and did make up a lot of stuff for the masses to do, and all for money. Oh, and the Bible(Paul)does say to Christians, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." Nothing about praying someone into Heaven after they die. And everyone knows that you interpret Scripture with Scripture. So, Catholics get you Bibles out and study and stop depending on someone else to do the interpreting. We do have the Scriputre in our common language now!The truth will set you free.

-- vicki johnston (vickiajohnston@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

"I pray for you, instead of looking to men for salvation I think you should seek God with all your hearts and He will teach you all things from His Word"

A: Once He teaches you all things from His Word, you will develop such a hunger for the Holy Catholic Church that you will not be able to stay away in good conscience, for that alone is where the fullness of His Word is to be found - in the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

"I really recommend the movie "Luther" Now there was a monk that changed the world, God used him to give us religous freedom!"

A: Religious freedom! I'll say! in protestantism you can believe any idea that pops into your head, even if it directly contradicts the teaching of another Protestant church, yet both can claim to be teaching the truth of Jesus Christ, based on His Word! Where does the Bible speak of "freedom" to believe anything you want to believe? Where does the Bible speak of thousands of conflicting denominations, all claiming to have the truth, and all imagining that they have found this "truth" in one and the same Bible?? 2 Tim 4:3, that's where! Yes, Luther certainly did change the world, by unleashing upon Christianity a plague of division, fragmentation, and untruth which has damaged Christianity more than the combined effects of all the bloody persecutions of history.

"You do have to admit the church was pretty corrupt and did make up a lot of stuff for the masses to do, and all for money"

A: Yes, there was some administrative corruption. many in the Church recognized this situation and worked to reform it, which they did. Unfortunately Luther didn't play a role in the administrative reform of God's Church because he had already abandoned God's Church, set up Luther's Church based on previously unheard of human traditions, and was already about the business of doctrinal corruption.

"And everyone knows that you interpret Scripture with Scripture"

A: No, "everyone" does not know any such thing. In fact, no Christian had ever heard of such a thing until it was introduced as one of the new manmade traditions forming the foundation of the new 16th century manmade religions; and after 450 years of desperately trying to "interpret Scripture with Scripture", in the absence of any true authority, resulting in the formation of several thousand conflicting manmade sects, it seems like it's about time to just admit the obvious - it DOESN'T WORK! And the reason it doesn't work is that it is NOT the will of God.

"So, Catholics get you Bibles out and study and stop depending on someone else to do the interpreting"

A: Oh yeah right! Listen up Catholics! Get out your Bibles and start interpreting away, and in a mere few hundred years YOU TOO can have 20,000 contradicting manmade denominations, just like the Protestants do! Seems like an awful waste though, after 2,000 years of continuous doctrinal unity, just like Jesus said His Church would have. Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll just stick with what works. It had to work because Jesus said it would.

"We do have the Scriputre in our common language now! The truth will set you free"

A: In HIS Church, everyone knows THE truth which sets us free. I'd have an awful time trying to choose among Baptist "truth", Methodist "truth", Congregationalist "truth", Pentecostal "truth", Lutheran "truth", Adventist "truth", Anglican "truth", Presbyterian "truth", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Again, thanks, but NO thanks. Truth cannot conflict with truth. What does that say about your denominational tradition?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

well i am replying to Paul M., and everyone else i know there are so many religions and that yes it can get all messed up and twisted around and fustrating, but im a christian and i dont have a religion I have a relationship with Jesus Christ my Lord and Savor. and theres only the one true bible and its the Holy BIBLE. i have read some of these replys and they start naming off a book that they say thats in the bible "macchabees" well in my bible which is the one and only true bible the HOLY BIBLE it doesnt have such a book and i dont believe in religion i believe in relationship and i believe in the Holy Bible so you can take this how it is and if you have any questions you can e-mail me.

Britney F.

-- Britney F. (HJgirl06@aol.com), December 01, 2003.

Britney,

There is no such thing as "believing in the Holy Bible". We all know that the Bible exists. As for what the Bible contains, a person can only believe in a particular interpretation of the Holy Bible. For any given passage, there is one correct interpretation, and any number of possible false interpretations. I believe in the interpretation provided by the Holy Spirit through the Church Jesus Christ founded for all men - the Church which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). You believe in the interpretation provided by - you. Sorry, but when did Jesus Christ tell YOU "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"?? He DID say that to the leaders of the Church He founded, so I'd be rather silly to listen to your interpretation when I have an authoritative and accurate interpretation from God Himself.

Have you ever read this passage?: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH; and if he refuses to listen EVEN TO THE CHURCH, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)

You see where Jesus says that ultimate AUTHORITY rests? Not in a book, not in your interpretations of a book, not in small groups of individuals, but in THE CHURCH. So how is it that you claim to follow the Bible, yet reject what the Bible says is the supreme authority? How do you follow this biblical command if you don't belong to THE CHURCH?

The reason your bible doesn't have Macchabees is that the founders of your manmade tradition ripped out all the sections of the Holy Bible they found threatening, and passed on to you what was left over. If they had their way, you wouldn't even have the full New Testament, since they fully intended to trash several NT books as well. Fortunately their followers prevented them from doing so, so your Protestant bible is only missing seven of the original biblical texts, plus parts of a couple of others. If you do a little reading on the subject, you will discover that every Bible that existed from the time the Bible was first compiled at the end of the 4th century until your founders tore it apart in the 16th century had 73 Sacred Books. The full Bible, as used by the Holy Catholic Church, still does. We would not THINK of altering the Word of God! But your bible is 7 books short and then some. You can get a genuine Bible in any Catholic book store. You should.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2003.