For lack of a better word, some non-catholic christians seem afraid of anything they consider extra biblical, while simultaneously having an apparent air of
Hypocrisy, where there own church’s extra biblical writings and beliefs are accepted, while not accepting extra biblical catholic writings and beliefs.
Thanks for sharing. Was there a question here?
For example your church’s teaching regarding communion is extra biblical. You then state the Catholic church is wrong on it’s teaching regarding the saints saying this is an extra-biblical teaching. But starting with a negative generally never leads to a positive.
I would not go so far as claim your faith community on whole or part is fearful. How ever there are some protestants who do seem to exhibit a paranioa in this regards.
You mean like the “King James Only” churches? (ala jack Chick) Agreed. Plenty of paranoia there.
yes that type
The only ones who appear “afraid” and show “hypocrisy” are perhaps the more fundamentalist groups (like KJV-Onlyists, mentioned in the previous posts) who I would agree don’t show a sense of discernment over these matters. Some non-Roman Catholics might accept some traditions simply because they believe it to be more valid or reasonable than select beliefs or traditions that Roman Catholics uphold. You might disagree with their ultimate conclusion, but I wouldn’t say it’s out of “fear” or “hypocrisy.” If we’re dealing just with extreme groups, however, (again, such as KJV-Onlyists) I would say I’m in agreement.
Dem, we use kjv in my parish… well that and the 1662 Prayer Book… wouldn’t say I was all that paranoid tbh.
Re: #1: I wouldn’t use the word “afraid” regarding non-Catholic Christians and extra-biblical traditions.
Re: #2: Yes, I most definitely would see it as hypocrisy, although it is a hypocrisy borne out of ignorance. They will tolerate a multitude of extra-biblical practices (altar calls, steeples on churches, Sunday worship, Bible study, Wednesday evening prayer meetings, outdoor weddings, etc etc etc), but object to anything Catholic not limned explicitly in the Scriptures.
Or, maybe inconsistency would be a better word, rather than hypocrisy. :shrug:
Some people just like the KJV as a personal preference or its familiarity in some communities. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The worst of KJV-Onlyists take it to the extreme where someone like myself, who studies with an NASB and quotes from the ESV, is going to hell for not using a KJV.
I find no reason to deviate from use of the Authorized Version, as we call it, since it seems in many ways to form a thread which runs for the past 400 years through much of the Great works of literature and poetry written in English, and thus makes for me the Holy Scriptures as evocative and central to the human existence as they ought to be.
I doubt God minds, though.
Does the C of E use the original KJV or the later version without the Deutero books?
It’s a matter of creating a more accurate translation closer to the original wording, based on a larger number of manuscripts available to us, certainly more than was available to the KJV translators. Plus, language changes - English at the time of Wycliffe was different than the time of the KJV, and English today is different than the time of the KJV. Even the KJV translators recognized that.
But as you said, God doesn’t mind. The holy language of heaven is not English, and you’re not saved by the Bible translation you possess.
It is expected to be supplemented with the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) which appear in the Church of England’s lectionary.