Simple mistake, I suppose. Sheesh, I’m touchy tonight.
For the record:
Protestant Bibles have more books than Jewish Bibles.
Catholic Bibles have more books than Protestant Bibles.
Orthodox Bibles have more books than Catholic Bibles.
And Mormons added a whole other testament, turning the Bible into a trilogy.
And just for the record, spectrum, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches all believe in the Sacraments and the Real Presence, retain the apostolic succession, and hold to most of Catholic doctrine – Mariology and the Papacy being the obvious exceptions, along with no requirement to believe in transubstantiation as the particular mechanism by which Christ is really present in the Eucharist.
I never said that they didn’t (though I’m not sure Lutherans practice aurical confession). However, the portions where they differ from Catholicism tend to be many of the things that I, at least, find most convincing regarding Catholicism.
But the fact is that a 1=1 correlation doesn’t exist, even between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and even when you remove the obvious ecclesial issues which are the heart of the Schism).
All of those churches are wonderful organizations, and blessedly free of the nonsense going on in the Catholic leadership circles. But if you go down the line and put a check mark under “agree” next to all Catholic doctrines, you’re not going to find all of your doctrinal needs met in them. At least, in my experience. YMMV.
Not your mileage, of course, but someone elses who is Catholic and attending one of these churches would see thier mileage vary. Or something like that.
Spectrum,
You seem to be the focus of this debate! I just wanted to let you know that what you are saying makes complete sense.
Catholic faith may be wonderful - - even joyful, but their current politics is awful.
I think you are dead on about the gay bashing. Even if you disagree with the gay lifestyle from a moral standpoint (which I do not) saying that child molestation is a “gay issue in the church” is offensive to the victims of this abuse, and a terrible insult to the LGBT community. It is also a red herring for the RC heirarchy to diffuse the child molestation charges.
Ahh, now I understand. The above quote by me was an unfortunate typo. Sorry spectrum. I can understand in this context why you would take offense.
I don’t wanna be the focus! I don’t like being the focus! I’m a sit in the back of the fraternity meeting and keep my thoughts to myself kinda person.
I prefer letting someone else be the focus, let them accure all the power, and then sweep in, kill them, and take their stuff… I mean, I mean, help them administrate. Yeah. That’s it.
I think the key is finding a way to separate the Catholic Church from Catholicism. To step back like that is difficult. Can you believe in the doctrines of the papacy, while dodging the flaws of the current administration? It must be possible. There have been worse popes and worse Magesteriums. These guys aren’t killing anyone, afterall.
I pray that a great deal of this is due to a lack of a strong hand at the top. That in the vacuum of power the troops are just circling the flag and hunkering down, using sound bytes and spur-of-the-moment decisions to weather the storm until a firm hand takes the keel in Peter’s palace.
In other words, perhaps the best thing that could happen in regards to the recent gyrations of the Catholic Church would be the death of John Paul II (which cannot be far away). I think we need a stronger pope, one capable of cleaning house, and one chastened by the turmoil of the past year. John Paul II was an amazing pope when he was a young, vigorous man, but in recent years, he’s been so burdened by illness that the Church has had no shepherd to lead the flock, and the ad hoc style of leadership that has developed at the local level has been inconsistent, and often downright immoral.
Well, here’s the thing.
From what I understand, your problem with the church is not one of doctrine, but of the moral authority possessed by the church. In your view, from what I read, the RCC no longer can, in your view, speak to you regarding moral matters.
That puts you in quite a pickle. Fear not, for there is a (semi)answer! Though the Roman rite of the church is overwhelmingly dominant, there are quite a few different Eastern Catholic Churches, which, though owing allegiance to Rome and doctrinally equal, have a very different tradition to them, a seperate Patriarch, and a overall different feel to them than to the RCC. Check to see if any are in your area. That being said, there are some other Western Rites too, but I doubt that you will find any at all in the US.
If the main issue is the Child molestation issue, you will have some problems. Unfortunately, molestation is a serious problem in every aspect of modern life. It is pervasive, and not unique to Priests. Doctors, teachers, lawyers, all have within their ranks those most evil of criminals, the abusers. Very unfortunately, Protestants are no different. There were, just a while ago, a couple of cases of molestations by Protestant pastors in my general area. I would gather (though I have no study to confirm this, and in fact, I doubt one exists) that the percentages of child molestations by Protestant reverends, Catholic priests, doctors, laywers, teachers, are all more or less the same. Now, what seperates Protestants and catholics in most cases is a monolithic central entity, a binding force. If a Priest commits an act, it is, rightly so, a problem of the larger church. If a reverend commits an act of molestation, it is much more (and again rightly so) to be seen as the problem of that particular church, and not all Protestants at large. Combine the place of catholicism as somewhat on the fringe of American society, and you get a great deal of (deserved) media attention. This attention, though in the short term harmful to the curches reputation, is in fact instrumental in the increased awareess of the public and the halting of continued abuses. We have all seen those dozens of priests being suspended and charged and placed under scrutiny. All of this would not have happened had the media not raised an (albeit rather exaggerated) awareness concerning the situation.
Unfortunately, in most, if not all, Protestant churches, this just won’t happen. Because of their decentralized nature and independence (as well as, to a much smaller degree, their higher pace in American society), a suitable media wave and public outcry could never build up to wash away the molesters from the pulpits. While a case or two will surface in isolated instances often enough, the (awful) fact of the matter is that a Protestant preacher who molests has a much higher (if the recent actons brought on by the church are any indication) liklihood of never being caught than a Catholic Priest. This does not change the fact that abuse is still happening, and it leaves you (as well as us all) in between a rock and a hard place. Because in the end, if anyone is morally below another, how can they speak to them about morals?
Now, a more in-depth analysis of your problem (if I am off base, I am sorry): Now, it seems to me, that though you may not know it, you deeply love the church, and its teachings. It was, at some point, your standard. Your justification. And now, in your eyes, it has betrayed you. You have found a taint in what you believed perfection, and that has deeply shocked you. This is hurting you more than most Catholics, and you wonder how they can stand it, how they can worship in a church. Perhaps they have, in their faith, tossed the corruption to the wayside. Perhaps they just don’t care, they go to Mass out of habit, or whatnot. Yet you cannot bring youself to do this. That is why, to give yourself any happiness, you must fight. I realize you rejected this proposition, but reconsider it. You NEED this. Make it a part of your life to save that which you love, for it is worth saving. Your love makes it worth saving. The alternative is to go through life with a missing piece of yourself, that cannot be fullfilled. I am sorry to say this, but if you go to any other church, chances are you will never be truly happy again. Of course, I might be wrong about all this, and you are welcome to try another church if you wish. But from what I see in you, you are a Catholic at heart, and that cannot be changed.
I have spoken with spouses of molestation victims and the victims themselves, and they have confirmed the phenomena. It is something so tortured that I can barely comprehend it, which is why I salute your faith, and mourn your soul. May you somehow, some way, find peace and happiness.
PS. If I in any way was offensive, factually incorrect, or misrepresnting I apologize and will alter my statements to better reflect my thoughts, and more importantly, the truth.
I guess I am really obselete as regards the possession and practice of the true religion.
Up to the present I have always thought that every religion, at least the monotheistic ones: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, maintain that theirs is the only true religion.
Well, for what I am going to share here, let us at least just keep to these three monotheistic religions.
Tell me then, all you who are discussing which church or religion to change to:
What kinds of truths and morals do each monotheistic religion inculcate?
Truths which can be disregarded as not fashionable or not comfortable or not politically correct or not subject to preferences of people who claim to believe in them?
Similarly with morals of these monotheistic religions?
Since the people here who are talking about which church or religion to move to which would be acceptable to them, then they do really have the idea or attitude that the truth value and ethical value of a religion’s teachings and observances are not to be taken seriously.
Because they can simply switch from one to another according to their seasonal tastes, after considering the merits of each in regard to doctrines, practices, present scandals, political sympathies and what have you.
This is really new for me.
And I thought that I was being radical telling people to pick a religion the way they would choose a peculiar cuisine or fashion, and not to be so committed to their religious convictions as to be disposed to kill and to be killed for them.
So, I guess I owe all you people here my most sincere apologies for thinking that you still belong to the old mentality that one’s relgion is to be taken as the only genuinely true religion.
Well, that’s good news for me.
I am sure with that kind of religious mind and attitude, none of you people here will go into crusades or jihads.
Praise the Lord!
Susma Rio Sep
I don’t think anyone mentioned this here, but if you’re current major offense with the Catholic church is it’s recent gay-baiting, you might want to investigate DignityUSA. Its a GLBT Catholic coalition which holds alternate affirming masses in quite a few cities around the country.
Check 'em out here if you’re interested: http://www.dignityusa.org/
Not exactly. Protestant Bibles have 39 books. The Jewish Bible has 24 books. However, both contain the same works.
See, what happened was (basically) Greek-speaking Jews were translating the Bible out of Hebrew into Greek, as Greek was becoming the lingua franca of the time.
Of course, language doesn’t exist in a cultural vacuum. The books were split up and put into what is definitely a more Greek order in terms of thought, compared to the three general collections of the Jewish Bible (Torah, Prophets, and Writings/Festal Scrolls.)
What happened was that some books were split up–Ezra-Nehemiah became the seperate books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Twelve (minor prophets) each got their own book in the Greek ordering, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were split up–and most were rearranged into the common Christian order of Pentateuch, historical books, poety and wisdom, and prophecy.
So, the Protestant and Jewish Bibles contain the same books, just arranged differently. The Catholics and Orthodox added the Apocrypha, which are all written in Greek and definitely have a Greek philosophy in them. Note that the Hebrew Bible omits anything that was written in Greek. Also, Esther and Daniel are larger in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.
Now, I think the Orthodox Bible is actually one book smaller. My reference here says that Baruch is only Roman Catholic, and that that book was not included in the canon established for the Orthodox at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.
As for the Mormons and the other testament (which I can’t come up with the name for; don’t you hate it when that happens?) I have problems with that, but I don’t know if this is the thread to go into that.
I would also suggest looking into Orthodox Christianity. One caveat: In the USA, Orthodoxy is in a situation similar to that of Roman Catholicism in the 19th century–not quite native. Many parishes are English-language Liturgy, but many use the language of the Old Country (especially Greek parishes).
As for the claim that “the Catholics and Orthodox added the Apocrypha”–that falls under the category of an OUTRIGHT LIE. The so-called “Apocrypha” were accepted in the Canon of Scripture for at least a millenium before there were any Protestants around.
I suggest looking at the following:
Whoa, whoa, calm down. Perhaps I didn’t use the best choice of words. However, if you think I was implying that they made it all up later, you’re dead wrong. The Apocrypha can be seen as an addition because the Hebrew Bible does not include the later works that were written in Greek. Later works written in Hebrew (Daniel, for example), sure, but not Greek. So you can also say that the Protestants subtract the Apocrypha from canon. The point is, if you ask a Protestant about the Apocrypha, you’ll either get a blank stare or the opinion that it is extra added on.
I was being pithy. By “more books,” I was referring to the New Testament.
I’m not sure about Baruch, but Orthodox Bibles do contain 3 Maccabees, and put 4 Maccabees in as something of an afterward to the Old Testament.
The Book of Mormon.
Again, I was just being pithy.
Except, asterion, that four of the deuterocanonical books were written in Hebrew (Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Judith, and First Maccabees) or Aramaic (Tobit).
Let’s list off the various canons, just for the sake of argument:
Torah (the total scriptures of the Samaritans, of which a few hundred still remain, in the vicinity of Nablus; accepted by all Christians and Jews)
[ul][li]Genesis[/li][li]Exodus[/li][li]Leviticus[/li][li]Numbers[/li][li]Deuteronomy[/ul][/li]
Prophets (accepted by all Christians and Jews)
The “Former Prophets”:
[ul][li]Joshua[/li][li]Judges[/li][li]Samuel (broken into First and Second Samuel in Christian Bibles)[/li][li]Kings (broken into First and Second Kings in Christian Bibles)[/li][/ul]The Latter Prophets:
[li]Isaiah[/li][li]Jeremiah[/li][li]Ezekiel[/li][li]The Twelve (broken into Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in Christian Bibles)[/list][/li]
The Writings (accepted by all Christians and Jews)
The Megilloth (each of these plays a particular part in a Jewish feast):
[ul][li]Song of Songs[/li][li]Ruth[/li][li]Lamentations[/li][li]Ecclesiastes[/li][li]Esther[/ul][/li]The other writings:
[ul][li]Psalms[/li][li]Proverbs[/li][li]Job[/li][li]Daniel[/li][li]Ezra (broken into Ezra and Nehemiah in Christian Bibles)[/li][li]Chronicles (broken into First and Second Chronicles in Christian Bibles)[/ul][/li]
The New Testament (accepted by all Christians)
The Gospels
[ul][li]Matthew[/li][li]Mark[/li][li]Luke[/li][li]John[/ul][/li]Acts of the Apostles
The Pauline Epistles:
[ul][li]Romans[/li][li]First Corinthians[/li][li]Second Corinthians[/li][li]Galatians[/li][li]Ephesians[/li][li]Philippians[/li][li]Colossians[/li][li]First Thessalonians[/li][li]Second Thessalonians[/li][li]First Timothy[/li][li]Second Timothy*[/li][li]Titus*[/li][li]Philemon[/li][li]Hebrews*[/ul][/li](Most scholars regard Hebrews, and the majority the Pastoral Epistles (to Timothy and Titus) as not Paul’s work, but they remain grouped with Paul’s letters as deriving from his tradition.)
The Catholic Epistles
[ul][li]James[/li][li]First Peter[/li][li]Second Peter (probably not written by Peter)[/li][li]First John[/li][li]Second John[/li][li]Third John[/li][li]Jude[/ul][/li]Revelation
The Catholic Deuterocanonical Books (Accepted by Orthodox and Catholics, and in a secondary level by Anglicans and Methodists)
[ul][li]First Maccabees[/li][li]Second Maccabees[/li][li]Tobit[/li][li]Judith[/li][li]Wisdom (of Solomon)[/li][li]Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, AKA Sirach and Ecclesiasticus[/li][li]Supplemental material expanding on the Jewish/Protestant versions of Daniel and Esther[/ul][/li]
**The Rest of the Septuagint (Accepted by Orthodox only; those starred () found in the Apocrypha of “full bibles” of Anglicans and Methodists)
[ul][li]Prayer of Manasseh[/li][li]First Esdras*[/li][li]Second Esdras*[/li][li]Third Maccabees[/li][li]Psalm 151 (added, of course, to Psalms)[/li][li]Fourth Maccabees (as an appendix to the first three)[/ul][/li]
Other
[ul][li]Enoch (accepted only by some Ethiopian Copts)[/li][li]The Book of Mormon (including well over a dozen “books” in the Bible sense) (accepted only by LDS and Reconstituted LDS)[/li][li]Doctrine and Covenants (accepted only by LDS)[/li][li]Pearl of Great Price (including Books of Abraham and Moses; accepted only by LDS)[/li][li]Koran (exclusive scriptures for Islam)[/li][li]Granth (exclusive scriptures for Sikhs)[/ul][/li]
Insofar as I know, the above list includes all the writings deemed authoritatively sacred by a major religion or a branch of Christianity; the Upanishads, Buddhist sutras, etc., are not deemed by followers of their faiths to be of a particular holiness equivalent to the Bible or Koran’s standing in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
furnishesq -
I left the Catholic Church more than 20 years ago. For me the issue was divorce, but like you, I maintain a strong residue of respect for the institution.
After trying several denominations, my family and I are pretty happy in the ELCA branch of the Lutheran church, but I don’t think that’s the answer you’re looking for.
What I’d seriously recommend is that you talk directly with several pastors to find one who is as outraged as you are. If you live in an area where it is relatively easy to visit another diocese, you may want to compare how the two bishops have handled the issues that trouble you.
I gather from your posts that you continue to care for the Church as an institution, but are disturbed by the actions of individual leaders. If that is a correct take, I would urge you to continue to support the Roman church by aligning yourself with the leaders you do respect. While the Roman Catholic Church is by no means a democracy, actions like that may have the long-term impact you hope for.
I have tried this suggestion. It is a good one. Tragically I have not found outrage from pastors. And I live in a very Catholic cultured area of New York, with several other dioceses within a few hours driving distance. Believe me when I say I have searched within the Catholic Church for solutions.
I will not bash the faith. It is beautiful.
I will bash the leaders of the faith. They have soiled it beyond my capacity to stay.
Maybe in the future I will be able to come back to the RC church. If I am wrong, I will know in the afterlife. But I have a hunch that Jesus would be pretty pissed if he were here about this crisis as well. . .
That is some kind of scary. . . You really hit the nail on the head on where I am at. Wow! I really do think most devout Catholics are willing to look the other way on this crisis. In fact, it is this very reason why the crisis was able to continue for so long.
Not even close to offensive. In fact it was the complete opposite. Amazing food for thought.
Polycarp, you forgot Baruch, which is accepted by both Orthodox and Catholics.
Besides Enoch, the Ethiopians also have the Book of Jubilees.
You’re right about Baruch – it was supposed to be on my list of Catholic deuterocanonicals; sorry I missed it (having it buried among the Prophets threw me off, I suppose). I didn’t know about Jubilees; thanks!
I think so: