Posted on 10/21/2014 8:29:57 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
"Today, many Christians, myself included, experience a quiet uneasiness about attending divine services in a strange church; they are appalled at the thought of the half-understood theories, the amazing and tasteless personal opinions of this or that priest that they will have to endure during the homily--to say nothing of the personal liturgical inventions to which they will be subjected. No one goes to church to hear someone else's personal opinions. I am simply not interested in what fantasies this or that individual priest may have spun for himself regarding questions of Christian faith. They may be appropriate for an evening's conversation but not for that obligation that brings me to church Sunday after Sunday. Anyone who preaches himself in this way overrates himself and attributes to himself an importance he does not have. When I go to church, it is not to find there my own or anyone else's innovations but what we have all received as the faith of the Church--the faith that spans the centuries and can support us all."
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (trans. M. F. McCarthy; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), 283
I do miss Benedict.
SOMETHING got under the craw of the Cardinal! Any chance...it was...The Truth?
This was a challenge I had when I moved to KY and attended my local baptist church. It is also something I never experienced before. I actually seem to, if not know more about scripture than the pastor did, at least have a more “supportable” position. That is, I back up my opinions with scripture instead of just fall back on what somebody told me.
I much prefer sunday school because we can discuss the topic and all learn a thing or two.
If you go to church long enough, virtually, if not literally, every sermon is something you’ve heard before.
I went back to my old church about four years ago. I had left it ten years before that. I went to my old sunday school class of about 70 people.
It was like going back to your old high school and sitting in on your old math class and hearing the exact same lesson you heard ten years ago - except all the other people are the same people you attended with back then and they’ve been attending ever since. They even raise their hands and offer the same opinions on the same subjects they did ten years before. And often they are the same “scripturally wrong” opinions.
I was absolutely flabbergasted.
Everyone seeks to ADD his or her interpretation, embellish, or new doctrine to what was on the cross claimed as “FINISHED.”
If every atheist worships themselves, then what can one say about each Christian who worships their version Jesus to their own likes?
What is the difference?
I just said something to myself in that statement and I’m still digesting it.
hmmmmm
The last time I attended a service at a Novus Ordo church, the priest went on a rant about the Tea Party. The only reason I didn’t get up and scream at him was my son was with me, in uniform, having just graduated from Marine Corps boot camp. I did, however, write a note which I passed into his hand before I left, never to return. The following Sunday we went to a Traditional service.
Even after the three year cycle of Readings in the Catholic Church, many pastors to NOT repeat their homilies.
Some do, but most do not.
Walking in to a strange Church and being subjected to a homily that sounds like it was written by Keith Olbermann. THAT makes ME uneasy!
re: “When I go to church, it is not to find there my own or anyone else’s innovations but what we have all received as the faith of the Church—the faith that spans the centuries and can support us all.”
I agree with the sentiment, but here’s the rub - you have to know the Scriptures well enough, and by it, know God’s character and His expectations of us - in order to discern the difference between sound doctrine and someone “else’s innovations”. To know the real thing from the counterfeit.
Some people believe that you can make the Bible say anything that individual wants it to say - but, that is not true. There are sound rules to studying the Bible (the fancy word is “hermeneutics”). These rules apply not only to the Bible, but to any historical text (like the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.).
- Should be interpreted “literally”, that is understand the Bible in its plain/normal meaning. Not reading between the lines, etc.
- Related to literal interpretation is - know what kind of Biblical literature you are dealing with. Is it poetry (as from the Psalms)? Is it prophecy? Is it historical narrative (1 and 2 Kings, Chronicles, etc.)? Is it from the Law? Is it one of the Gospels? Is it a parable? And on and on.
- Context, context, and context (what came before the passage, what comes after, etc.)
- Historical and cultural setting of the particular book or passage.
- Grammatical rules of Hebrew and Greek.
All these things help keep the reader true to the meaning of the text.
The other big thing that is needed is humility.
The homilist needs to be promoting God’s agenda, not his own.
I will say that when the Gamecock family travels on weekends we attend church. It is part of the fabric of our family.
I’ve never been to a Mass where the priest was bold enough to talk about liberal politics. Kind of wish that would happen, so I could tear into him after Mass. Most priests don’t mention politics one way or the other. I wish they would.
....Plus invoke the Holy Spirit prayer as well.
Exactly. Sadly, there is way too little Biblical literacy these days. I’m grateful for Bible Study Fellowship(BSF).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.