Carlene

Just so everyone knows I have not abandoned my resolve to be less of a slug.....I walked 5 miles today. AND I finally got the dogs bathed. (When you lie down with dogs....you would rather they didn't smell like dogs.) Tomorrow I tackle the carpet....or at least the "high traffic" areas. Middle Son and his family took us out to lunch (a "thank you" for doing his wife's Power Point presentation for her college Lit class). We went to Red Hot and Blue (a rib place, for those not familiar). I ate one rib and about 1/3 of a sweet potato. A perfect Bandster portion lunch!

Stacey... This part of LBT (the Rants and Raves forum) is not intended to provide support. Generally, people looking for support would peruse the other forums. R&R is a place to go and let our hair down and, yes, sometimes argue. Rest assured, however, that if things ever get out of hand, the Mods will step in and lock the thread. I certainly never intended to upset a fellow Christian. I sincerely try and find a middle ground between standing up for what I believe in and brow beating other people who might believe differently. This kind of thread is a bit like horror movies.....some like them, and some don't. If you are disgusted, I suggest you simply don't go there. Many LBT members never venture into Rants and Raves for that very reason. They find the sight of blood distasteful.

I should have said "Fundamentalist", rather than "Charismatic". My mistake. But you did accuse the vast majority of American Christians of being liberal, and you did say they had "strayed from biblical truth", so yes....I would say that you have indicated an ultra-conservative point of view.

A very interesting perspective, Tommy. My God is both all-powerful and all-loving. He is quick to forgive and slow to anger. He does not nit pick. There is no need to, as he knows what is in my heart. My God paints with a broad brush. Follow the 10 Commandments and you can't possibly go wrong. Strive to be what you know God desires, but don't wear a hair shirt and flog yourself every time you fall short. More importantly, don't be judging other people - their actions, their beliefs, or their state of Grace. That is presumptuous and not pleasing to God. PS....I have a particular fondness for the name "Tommy". It is what we have always called my oldest son, although he now prefers "Thomas". But I don't care. I'm the mom, so I still get to call him Tommy.

Just for the record, I wasn't pointing out a misspelling, or at least I didn't think I was. I wouldn't do that (generally speaking - although I did once, in another thread). "Clinerary" is not a misspelling of "Plenary". It's a whole other word (not a word, actually). It sounded to me like someone who remembered hearing/reading something that might cast a negative light on the practice of Catholicism, so he thought he'd throw it out, just for the sake of argument. If you are going to accuse a person, or a body of persons, of something, you should at least research it a little bit. If you can't even come close to the correct terminology, you have no business citing it as "fact".

Thanks....it's a GREAT time! Just got back from a quick one mile walk with the Schnauzer. He's high energy and prone to weight gain. It's a beautiful 54 degrees in D/FW. Hope it's as nice where you are! This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad!

---------------HUH?????--------------------

The Book of Revelation...Chapter 5 6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. 8 When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

Ron, this is such a tired old horse you insist on whipping. First of all, an indulgence cannot purchase the pardon of a soul, nor can it secure salvation. Pope Pius V, in 1567, forbid the attachment of an indulgence to any financial act. And it remains so today. So you were not taught as a child that money could ransom a soul from Purgatory. Secondly, the doctrine of indulgences (supported, by the way, in scripture, if one reads 2 Maccabees) was instrumental in Luther's 95 theses. In 1517 Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica. This was a very bad idea on the part of Leo X and did, indeed, seem like the church was selling salvation. It was not any worse, however, than Jim Baker's defrauding of his flock by over-selling shares in his Heritage USA theme park. It was no more ill-advised than Oral Roberts ridiculous plea for eight million dollars or God would call him home. Men are mortals and they sometimes do wrong things. If that were an indictment of the church, then there would be no churches left.

I just want to say that I walked 4 1/2 miles today, went to Mass, and still got in a ton of LBT time. But I didn't get my dogs bathed, or my carpets shampooed. Guess we know where my priorities are, don't we?

I absolutely want to make it okay for "everyone to do it their own way". It's their immortal soul. They get to choose how they handle its redemption. And they deserve my respect. Because I am a sinner, too. Because I don't have God's ear, any more than they do....any more than you do.

No, but I've heard of PLENARY indulgences. For someone who wants to debate Catholicism, you sure don't know much about it.

I am so weary of people who absolutely cannot stand the thought that someone else - someone not affiliated with their church or their interpretation of the Bible - might actually go to heaven, I would just like to SCREAM! Why do you even CARE? Can't you just go about your me-so-holy way without sermonizing endlessly to the rest of us? Can't you pass up the opportunity, ever, to share your goobered up ideas about what Christ REALLY wants from us? Come on, folks! I don't put down talking in tongues or flopping around on the floor like a fish out of water, do I? If that's a religious rite in your church, far be it from me to criticize. (After all, who am I to cast stones? My own clergy sometimes wears ridiculous trappings and swings a pot of incense.) If you believe dancing is sinful, that musical instruments should be banned from the sanctuary, or that the road to hell is paved with broken wine bottles, I've got your back. No matter what your creed, I am willing to acknowledge that there is a very, very good chance that you will get to heaven. I WANT you to ...not on my terms, but on YOURS. Because Christians don't disrespect other Christians. Now....can I have an amen?

I do not know a single Catholic - or Christian, period - who believes he/she can get to heaven by virtue of their own "merit" and nothing more. ...for us men and our salvation ,he came down from heaven... Remember that? It was written in the 4th century. It is the cornerstone of the Catholic faith. Now be a good boy and stop telling people that Catholics believe they can (a) buy their way into heaven, or ( earn enough "points" to achieve heaven. And while you're at it, please clear up that silly rumor about the statues.

A guy friend just sent this to me..... Women, Pregnancy, and Estrogen PREGNANCY Q & A & more! Q: Should I have a baby after 35? A: No, 35 children is enough. Q: I'm two months pregnant now. When will my baby move? A: With any luck, right after he finishes college. Q: What is the most reliable method to determine a baby's sex? A: Childbirth. Q: My wife is five months pregnant and so moody that sometimes she's borderline irrational. A: So what's your question? Q: My childbirth instructor says it's not pain I'll feel during labour, but pressure. Is she right? A: Yes, in the same way that a tornado might be called an air current. Q: When is the best time to get an epidural? A: Right after you find out you're pregnant. Q: Is there any reason I have to be in the delivery room while my wife is in labor? A: Not unless the word "alimony" means anything to you. Q: Is there anything I should avoid while recovering from childbirth? A: Yes, pregnancy. Q: Do I have to have a baby shower? A: Not if you change the baby's diaper very quickly. Q: Our baby was born last week. When will my wife begin to feel and act normal again? A: When the kids are in college. "ESTROGEN ISSUES" 10 WAYS TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE "ESTROGEN ISSUES" 1. Everyone around you has an attitude problem. 2. You're adding chocolate chips to your cheese omelet. 3. The dryer has shrunk every last pair of your jeans. 4. Your husband is suddenly agreeing to everything you say. 5. You're using your cellular phone to dial up every bumper sticker that says: "How's my driving-call 1- 800-". 6. Everyone's head looks like an invitation to batting practice. 7. Everyone seems to have just landed here from "outer space". 9. You're sure that everyone is scheming to drive you crazy. 10. The ibuprofen bottle is empty and you bought it yesterday.. TOP TEN THINGS ONLY WOMEN UNDERSTAND 10. Cats' facial expressions. 9. The need for the same style of shoes in different colours. 8. Why bean sprouts aren't just weeds. 7. Fat clothes. 6. Taking a car trip without trying to beat your best time. 5. The difference between beige, ecru, cream, off-white, and eggshell. 4. Cutting your hair to make it grow. 3. Eyelash curlers. 2. The inaccuracy of every bathroom scale ever made. AND, the Number One Number One thing only women understand: 1. OTHER WOMEN

You object to the line "we believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" because of the word "catholic"? Really? That's so anti-intellectual, Ron. The lower case "catholic" simply means "one", or "universal". Do you also object, on moral grounds, to the use of the term "coke" for either a Coca Cola or any similar soft drink? Why not? We all know that "coke" is synonymous with cocaine, right? Except that Coke, the soft drink, is capitalized and coke the drug, is not. That's how we know whether you are having a Coke or doing some coke.

That's rubbish and you know it. No priest ever told you that everyone who died on Tuesday was going to hell. BTW....Catholics go to confession maybe once a year now - if that. We are not required to confess anything except mortal sins, and many of us live our entire lives without committing one (adultery, murder, blasphemy, etc). The Bible says much about performing good works. The Apostle James tells us that faith without good works "is as dead as a body without breath". The Church encourages good works, but never said you could "earn" a place in heaven by good works alone. No Catholic believes that a priest, no matter how "saintly" he might be, can forgive sins. Only God can do that. You must have slept thru that class. The Catholic Church, as well as many Protestant churches, does indeed embrace the "communion of saints". We talk to dead people. We ask the saints to pray for us. Sometimes it works. The now-famous prayer of Danny Thomas to St. Jude, patron of lost causes, resulted in St. Jude's Children's Hospital being built. You wouldn't think twice about asking your aunt to pray for you, would you? What's the difference in asking for Aunt Tillie's prayers and asking for St. Theresa's? They've ALL strayed from "biblical truth"? That's a LOT of people....Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, all members of the Orthodox churches, Anglicans, etc. So....they are all wrong-thinkers, according to you, and only the ultra-conservative (charismatic) churches are right?

And what, exactly, is in the Nicene Creed that you do not subscribe to? In which part do you see something other than "Biblical truth"?

I prefer to celebrate the things which unite us as Christians, not the minor differences that separate us. I think it irrelevant to hash over variances that don't amount to a hill of beans - Catholics, for example, baptize infants (as do Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and a host of others) and confirm at the age of "reason", or responsibility. Baptists (and other ultra-conservatives) "dedicate" babies and baptize young adults. Same difference. Who cares about the semantics? The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century. It is the most widespread statement of Christian belief (or "dogma") in recorded history. It is accepted and used by the Catholic Church, virtually all branches of Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Anglicans, and most branches of Protestantism. It very nicely sums up pretty much all that I, and many others, believe. How do your beliefs differ, Ron (broadly speaking)? We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN. * note for those not familiar with the creed....the term "catholic" in this instance (lower case) literally means "universal". It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

I am a Starbucks freak. A grande non-fat latte with Equal has less than 200 calories and a good amount of protein, so as far as I'm concerned, it's "legal". My doctor did not say anything about giving up coffe and, in fact, offers free coffee in his waiting room. I gave up cigarettes about 12 years ago. I have never been a big boozer. Now that I'm banded, I can't eat a lot of things (bread, pizza, etc). You have to draw the line somewhere and I'm drawing it at coffee.

I have just about every excuse in the world for NOT succeeding with the band: over 50, menopausal, low thyroid, snack/sweets/carb eater, limited mobility (multiple back surgeries), hate to exercise, don't like baked fish or green veggies, zero willpower.....etc. It's done pretty darn well for me, in spite of myself. Has it done it FOR me? Hell NO! I had to stop buying Cheetos, because I can overdose on them at the rate of a large bag per day. Then it was the white chocolate M&M's. (I think they've stopped making those....thank God!). I can't eat bread, or I would. Get the crap out of your house and keep it out. Notice I didn't say "stop eating it". If you want chocolate, drive to the store and buy ONE regular size candy bar. If you crave ice cream, drive to the ice cream shop and buy ONE single dip cone. Just don't sabotage yourself by having an unlimited supply of that stuff on hand at all hours. Next suggestion....get a swallow test. That will tell the tale as far as whether you are too loose or too tight. If you are "just right", you still may not be able to eat beef, chicken, etc. Some of us just have sensitive stomas. BUT....that's not a license to resort to ice cream and chips. I eat a lot of soup that is very healthy, especially when my band is being bitchy. Broth-based soups, chili, meatballs in sauce, crisp bacon, low-fat cheese, tuna, cottage cheese and yogurt (non-fat) and skim milk are the mainstays of my diet. (Recipes available upon request.) And now the dreaded "E" word.....move your butt - don't just sit on it. Walk a couple of miles every day. (Yes, you can. My mother-in-law will be 87 in April and she walks 2 miles every day - with two artificial knees.) Give these a try for 90 days and I promise you, the results will make you a very happy Bandster.

Are you saying that everyone EXCEPT the Catholic Church - Jews and "the rest of the Christian community" - are in agreement as to what writings are "inspired"? Because if that's what you're saying, you're wrong. I have cut and pasted below a reference from the Jewish Online Library, for your scholarly edification. Though the word "Bible" is commonly used by non-Jews -- as are the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" -- the appropriate term to use for the Hebrew scriptures ("scripture" is a synonym used by both Jews and non-Jews) is Tanakh. This word is derived from the Hebrew letters of its three components: Torah: The Books of Genesis (Bereshit), Exodus (Shemot), Leviticus (Vayikrah), Numbers (Bamidbar) and Deuteronomy (Devarim). Nevi'im (Prophets): The Books of Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. (The last twelve are sometimes grouped together as "Trei Asar" ["Twelve"].) Ketuvim (Writings): The Books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel (although not all that is included in the Christian Canon), Ezra and Nehemiah, I Chronicles, and II Chronicles. It should be noted that the breaking of Samuel (Shmuel), Kings (Melachim) and Chronicles (Divrei hayamim) into two parts is strictly an artifact of the Christian printers who first issued the books. They were too big to be issued as single volumes. Because every one followed these de facto standards, the titles of Volume 1 and Volume 2 were attached to the names. The division of the Tanakh into chapters was also done by medieval Christians, and only later adopted by Jews. Also, many Christian Bibles have expanded versions of several of these books (Ester, Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Chronicles) including extra material that is not accepted as canonical in Judaism. This extra material was part of the ancient Greek translation of the Tanakh, but was never a part of the official Hebrew Tanakh. Jews regard the additional material as apocryphal. Among Christians, there is a difference of opinion. Catholics regard this material as canonical, while many Protestant sects regard this material as Apocrypha. What is and is not regarded as Apocrypha varies among the many Christian sects. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Tanakh.html

Last sentence, first paragraph: These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews. That doesn't say that the Catholic Church found the books to be uninspired. It just says they were not part of the Hebrew Canon as determined by the Jews.

Would you be willing to discuss (publicly) exactly what makes you an authority on Catholic dogma?

I believe this is the reference you mentioned. Nowhere in it do I read that the Catholic Church "admits" that the Apocrypha is not divinely inspired. Perhaps you could point that out to me? THE "APOCRYPHA": WHY IT'S PART OF THE BIBLE (Bible verses: RSV) The Old Testament in Catholic Bibles contains seven more books than are found in Protestant Bibles (46 and 39, respectively). Protestants call these seven books the Apocrypha and Catholics know them as the deuterocanonical books. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. Also, Catholic Bibles contain an additional six chapters (107 verses) in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel (174 verses). These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews. All of these were dogmatically acknowledged as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1548 (which means that Catholics were henceforth not allowed to question their canonicity), although the tradition of their inclusion was ancient. At the same time, the Council rejected 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses as part of Sacred Scripture (these are often included in collections of the "Apocrypha" as a separate unit). The Catholic perspective on this issue is widely misunderstood. Protestants accuse Catholics of "adding" books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have "booted out" part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows: 1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint. 2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church. 3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible). 4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism. 5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood. 6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405. 7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated. 8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii). 9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers. 10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river. 11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522. 12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15: Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6} Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. {see also Revelation 5:8} Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One. St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology: 1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth. As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29: Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. 2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. {a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26} 13) Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the "Apocrypha," doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were "demoted" by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs. 14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others. 15) The deuterocanonical books are read regularly in public worship in Anglicanism, and also among the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants and Jews fully accept their value as historical and religious documents, useful for teaching, even though they deny them full canonical status. It is apparent, then, that the Catholic "case" for these scriptural books carries a great deal of weight, certainly at the very least equal to the Protestant view.