"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father -- Two Liturgical Abuses at Once

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | July 07, 2008 | Dave Armstrong

[Salvation]

Monday, July 07, 2008

"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father Are Against the Rubrics (Instructions) For the Mass

 

Two liturgical abuses at once: "orans" posture and hand-holding during the Our Father

[ source ]

 

Colin B. Donovan, STL, over at the EWTN website, states that the "orans' posture in the congregation (arms outstretched in a "praying" or adoration position) is contrary to the rubrics:

The liturgical use of this position by the priest is spelled out in the rubrics (the laws governing how the Mass is said). It indicates his praying on BEHALF of us, acting as alter Christus as pastor of the flock, head of the body. . . .
It is never done by the Deacon, who does not represent the People before God but assists him who does.
Among the laity this practice began with the charismatic renewal. Used in private prayer it has worked its way into the Liturgy. It is a legitimate gesture to use when praying, as history shows, however, it is a private gesture when used in the Mass and in some cases conflicts with the system of signs which the rubrics are intended to protect. The Mass is not a private or merely human ceremony. The symbology of the actions, including such gestures, is definite and precise, and reflects the sacramental character of the Church's prayer. . . .
Our Father. The intention for lay people using the Orans position at this time is, I suppose, that we pray Our Father, and the unity of people and priest together is expressed by this common gesture of prayer. Although this gesture is not called for in the rubrics, it does at least seem, on the surface, to not be in conflict with the sacramental sign system at the point when we pray Our Father. I say on the surface, however, since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.
After Our Father. This liturgical disunity continues after the Our Father when some, though not all, who assumed the Orans position during the Our Father continue it through the balance of the prayers, until after "For thine is the kingdom etc." The rubrics provide that priest-concelebrants lower their extended hands, so that the main celebrant alone continues praying with hands extended, since he represents all, including his brother priests. So, we have the very anomalous situation that no matter how many clergy are present only one of them is praying with hands extended, accompanied by numbers of the laity.
So, while we shouldn't attribute bad will to those who honestly have felt that there was some virtue in doing this during the Mass, it is yet another case where good will can achieve the opposite of what it intends when not imbued with the truth, in this case the truth about the sacramental nature of the postures at Mass and their meaning.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, in an article about postures during the Our Father, agrees, and provides more documentation:

The Holy See has been concerned about the laity unduly aping the priest at Mass, and in the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration, an unprecedented conjunction of Vatican dicasteries wrote:

6 § 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 [i.e., "In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest."] are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

This instruction, incidentally, was approved by John Paul II in forma specifica, meaning that the pope invested it with his own authority and is binding on us with the pope's authority and not merely the authority of the authoring congregations.
Now, what gestures are proper to the priest celebrant? The orans gesture when praying on behalf of the people is certainly one of them.

An article in Adoremus Bulletin offers yet more proof that this is an abuse:
Many AB readers have been asking about the orans posture during the Our Father (orans means praying; here it refers to the gesture of praying with uplifted hands, as the priest does during various parts of the Mass).
In some dioceses in the United States, people are being told that they should adopt this gesture, though it is not a customary posture for prayer for Catholic laity. Sometimes people are told that their bishop mandates this change because the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) requires it or at least encourages it.
Thus it may be helpful to review the actual regulations on the orans posture.
Wht does the GIRM say?
First of all, nowhere in the current (2002) General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does it say that the orans posture is recommended for the congregation during the Our Father.

In GIRM 43 and 160, the paragraphs dealing with the people's posture during Mass, the only posture specified for the congregation at the Lord's Prayer is standing. It says nothing at all about what people do with their hands. This is not a change from the past.

The confusion arose among bishops in the 1990s, when some were suggesting the orans position in the ICEL Sacramentary, but not in the new Roman Missal. But even the Sacramentary revision was "specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal appeared." The article continues:

At their November 2001 meeting, the bishops discussed "adaptations" to the new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (or GIRM) of the new Missal (reported in AB February 2002). The proposal to introduce the orans posture for the people was not included even as an option in the US' "adaptations" to the GIRM.
Furthermore, the bishops did not forbid hand-holding, either, even though the BCL originally suggested this in 1995. The reason? A bishop said that hand-holding was a common practice in African-American groups and to forbid it would be considered insensitive.
Thus, in the end, all reference to any posture of the hands during the Our Father was omitted in the US-adapted GIRM. The orans posture is not only not required by the new GIRM, it is not even mentioned.
The approved US edition of the GIRM was issued in April 2003, and is accessible on the USCCB web site - http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Not on the list
The posture of the people during prayer at Mass is not one of the items in the GIRM list that bishop may change on his own authority (see GIRM 387). Thus it is not legitimate for a bishop to require people to assume the orans posture during the Our Father.
The GIRM does say that a bishop has the "responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful". He has the authority to see that practices in his diocese conform to the norms liturgical law, . . .

Holding hands during the Our Father is also clearly against the rubrics: thus should not be done on that basis alone. Catholic apologist Karl Keating wrote about this:

ORIGINS OF HAND-HOLDING
The current issue of the "Adoremus Bulletin" says this in response to a query from a priest in the Bronx:
"No gesture for the people during the Lord's Prayer is mentioned in the official documents. The late liturgist Fr. Robert Hovda promoted holding hands during this prayer, a practice he said originated in Alcoholics Anonymous. Some 'charismatic' groups took up the practice."
My long-time sense had been that hand-holding at the Our Father was an intrusion from charismaticism, but I had not been aware of the possible connection with AA. If this is the real origin of the practice, it makes it doubly odd: first, because hand-holding intrudes a false air of chumminess into the Mass (and undercuts the immediately-following sign of peace), and second, because modifications to liturgical rites ought to arise organically and not be borrowed from secular self-help groups.
Periodically, on "Catholic Answers Live" I am asked about hand-holding during Mass and explain that it is contrary to the rubrics. Usually I get follow-up e-mails from people who say, "But it's my favorite part of the Mass" or "We hold hands as a family, and it makes us feel closer."
About the latter I think, "It's good to feel close as a family, but you can hold hands at home or at the mall. The Mass has a formal structure that should be respected. That means you forgo certain things that you might do on the outside."
About the former comment I think, "If this is the high point of the Mass for you, you need to take Remedial Mass 101. The Mass is not a social event. It is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, and it is the loftiest form of prayer. It should be attended with appropriate solemnity."

* * * * *

Further comments, from interaction on the CHNI board. The words of Rick Luquette over there will be in green (official documents indented and in regular black) :
Currently the following is found from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship:

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.
Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture?
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

Well (to use the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum), if all gestures are left open, then could congregations spontaneously decide to hug one another during the Our Father? Or how about lifting up one arm heavenward? Or all turning towards each other (i.e., the center of the church)?
The General Instructions of the Roman Missal includes the following:

390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself.

These adaptations include
The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).
Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

So it appears that at present, there is no recommended position for the hands of the faithful at the Our Father.
I should think it is obvious that it would be either hands at the side or clasped or in the hands-joined prayer position. But is not the orans position specifically prohibited, since it is imitating the posture of the priest? As Colin B. Donovan wrote (as I cited):

. . . since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.

Also, Jimmy Akin cited the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration (specifically approved by Pope John Paul II):

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

That precludes the orans position, though it itself doesn't seem to prohibit hand-holding (because the priest is not doing that at this time). What is your counter-explanation for that? What you decline to call any abuse at all is called "abuses" and "a grave abuse" by this papally-approved document. If bishops say otherwise, then the faithful Catholic still has the right to appeal to Church-wide proclamations from the Vatican, which carry more authority than bishops, and are to be followed in cases of contradiction. Some priests, however, have refused to give communion to a kneeling recipient, when the Church has specifically stated that all Catholics have a right to receive kneeling. The document above also made reference to Canon 907 from the Catholic Code of Canon Law:

Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.

Lacking specific instruction from the competent authority (the USCCB) you quote Jimmy Akin as saying holding hands during the Our Father is contrary to the rubrics. Following the link you provided to his article, he states:

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms.

This appears to be his rationale for declaring that holding hands is against the rubrics. Unfortunately, he does not give any authoritative reference for this statement. To the best of my knowledge, the definition of the word "standing" does not include "without doing anything fancy with your arms".
Let me cite him at greater length from this article:

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms. It is distinct, for example, from the orans posture, which the priest uses when he stands and prays with arms outstretched. It is also distinct from the hand-holding posture.
The latter is not expressly forbidden in liturgical law because it is one of those "Please don't eat the daisies" situations. The legislator (the pope) did not envision that anybody would try to alter the standing posture in this way. As a result, the practice is not expressly forbidden, the same way that standing on one foot and hopping up and down as an effort to get closer to God in heaven is not expressly forbidden.
In general what liturgical documents do is to say what people should be doing and not focus on what they should not be doing (though there are exceptions). To prevent "Please don't eat the daisies" situations, what the law does is prohibit things that aren't mentioned in the liturgical books. Here's the basic rule:

Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Akin is not the magisterium, of course, but he is a highly respected apologist who has written a book about rubrics in the Mass (Mass Confusion: The Do's and Don'ts of Catholic Worship; San Diego: Catholic Answers, 1999). He also regularly cites folks like canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters (who has written about liturgical confusion and need for further codification).
He also says:

Changing from standing to hand holding during the Lord's Prayer would be an alteration or addition of something provided for in the liturgical books and thus would be at variance with the law.

Sneezing is an addition not provided in the liturgical books either. Standing and hand-holding are not either/or positions; they are both/and. I can hold hands while I stand.
I can also hug, kiss, clasp my hands far above my head, make a peace sign, clench my fists, point my fingers towards the priest with arms outstretched, or straight up, pick wax out of my ear, scratch my head, comb my hair, wave, put my hands on my waist (like an outfielder in baseball) and do any number of things while standing, that are not mentioned, either. Quite obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. If these things were spontaneously introduced by the laity during Mass, then the Church has a right to more specifically define what can or can't be done (and folks should be reasonable in interpreting what "standing" means).
Isn't it common sense, anyway that "stand" means standing without implied reference to anything else (though not necessarily precluding gestures)? If one is, for example, told to stand in a courtroom, they wouldn't stand in the orans posture or hold someone's hands while standing, or put their hands on the top of their head. It would never cross their mind. So why would it be different in church?
I can assume the Orans posture while standing.
Not (or so it seems) according to Canon 907 and the high-level Instruction on Collaboration and deductively from the fact that even a deacon cannot do so. The laity can spontaneously do what a deacon cannot do?
Zenit, in a Q & A with Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum, provides the following:

Some readers asked if the U.S. bishops' vote against allowing the "orantes" posture meant that this gesture was forbidden in the United States. The bishops, in deciding not to prescribe or suggest any particular gesture during the Our Father, did not therefore proscribe any particular gesture either.
The bishops' conference decision does limit the possibility of another authority such as a pastor or even a diocesan bishop from prescribing this gesture as obligatory. But it need not constrain an individual from adopting the "orantes" posture nor, in principle, stop a couple or small group from spontaneously holding hands.
While holding hands during the Our Father is very much a novelty in the millenarian history of Catholic liturgy, the "orantes" posture, as one reader from Virginia reminds us, is as old as Christianity, is depicted in the catacombs, has always been preserved in the Eastern rites and was not reserved to the priest until after several centuries in the Latin rite -- and even then not everywhere.
The controversy regarding the use of the "orantes" posture for the Our Father appears to be confined to the English-speaking world. In many other places, it is pacifically accepted as an optional gesture which any member of the community is free to perform if so inclined.

I think this is interesting in light of the other things mentioned above. I'd sincerely like to see how Fr. McNamara harmonizes them.
So the Orans (or orantes) posture is not forbidden; it is a historical posture of the Church, and it is commonly accepted throughout the world.
It was not a common posture during Mass, according to canon lawyer Edward Peters, who observed:

While the orans position as such has a rich tradition in Jewish and even ancient Christian prayer life, there is no precedent for Catholic laity assuming the orans position in Western liturgy for at least a millennium and a half; that point alone cautions against its introduction without careful thought. Moreover — and notwithstanding the fact that few liturgical gestures are univocal per se — lay use of the orans gesture in Mass today, besides injecting gestural disunity in liturgy, could further blur the differences between lay liturgical roles and those of priests just at a time when distinctions between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood are struggling for a healthy articulation.

The previous Zenit article in the series includes the following statement from Fr. McNamara regarding the Orans/Orantes posture:

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops' conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the "American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal" last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.
Fr. McNamara adds that this posture is accepted and officially recommended in Italy, with Vatican approval.
As I have said before, I am not in favor of holding hands during the Our Father. I accept the Orans posture but would quite happily do without it. However, given that there are no instructions to the contrary (and the document quoted by Mr. Akin is intended to address a completely different issue), I see no prohibition against it.

Then I look forward to your counter-explanations of what I have reiterated above. Thanks for the discussion.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The church is the foundation and pillar, which supports the thing but is not the thing. Some people just can’’t seem to grasp that. The indoctrination runs deep.

First, I have to say I love my Roman br'ers and sisters - meaning all Romans who have entrusted themselves to the saving work of Christ and not to their works, which can never save. There are many, despite the fraudulent doctrines that obscure the Gospel of Grace.

Having written that, I want to point out that Romans are no different than all other humans. We all prefer a sanitized, clean story that leaves little room for doubt or shading.

Despite the falseness of these doctrines, they appeal to the human/Roman need for a clean story:

Peter was the first pope
There is an unbroken line of popes
Mary is everyone's mother now
Religious rituals are necessary for salvation
Rome is the ultimate authority
Rome is the Church in the NT
We can and should pray to departed saints
Etc.

Unfortunately, it is the rare Roman who looks under the hood and discovers that these are all false, many of which have pagan origins. It is cleaner to retell a simple story in a sanitized form. Unfortunately, that story is false and does not lead to salvation.

[Jvette]

Hypocritical in what way?

You dispute something because the specific phrase or word is not in the Bible. I pointed out that the word Trinity is not in the Bible and millions of Christians accept it as Truth.

The concept of the Trinity is present in Scripture without the actual word being used.

Sola Scriptura on the other hand is not.

Obviously there is disagreement in the interpretation or understanding of the concept of SS.

I might point out that the same is true for the concept of the Trinity. There are some who profess Christianity and reject that God is Three in One.

The corporal works of mercy are spelled out in Scripture though the specific phrase is not.

[Jvette]

I can see what you are saying here and can somewhat agree that brethren would be/is those who belong to Christ.
I can also see that there may be those who do these things without doing them as one of the brethren.

But, I believe that Christ teaches us how to believe and how to love and this passage is meant to explain that it is not the external works of the law, but acts of mercy/kindness/compassion and selflessness that bear witness to our love for Christ and for our neighbor.

Remember in the story of the good Samaritan, the neighbor was not who His listeners expected but one who others would not have expected to give help. We do not always know who are brethren/neighbors. Love can come to us from unexpected people and we should love those who do not expect it from us.

[Jvette]

My grandmother used to tell me that if I was merely half as smart as I thought I was, I would be a genius.

[Elsie]

You were not unkind; merely unable to back up your assertions.

Any apologies (I need none) should be directed to any lurkers who are waiting for some kind of evidence of what you've typed here.

[Elsie]

The concept of the Trinity is present in Scripture without the actual word being used.

Sola Scriptura on the other hand is not.

You; too; can continue saying this; and I'll just go on posting the following...

NIV Matthew 2:5
"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

NIV Matthew 4:1-11
1. Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
2. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
3. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4. Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "
5. Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.
6. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' "
7. Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
9. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10. Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "
11. Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

NIV Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

NIV Matthew 21:13
"It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a `den of robbers.' "

NIV Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.

NIV Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'

NIV Mark 7:6-7
6. He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
7. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

NIV Mark 9:11-13
11. And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
12. Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?
13. But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."

NIV Mark 11:17
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations' ? But you have made it `a den of robbers.' "

NIV Mark 14:27
"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'

NIV Luke 1:1-4
1. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

NIV Luke 4:17-19
17. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18. "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,
19. to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

NIV Luke 7:27
This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

NIV Luke 10:26
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

NIV Luke 18:31-33
31. Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
32. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him.
33. On the third day he will rise again."

NIV Luke 20:17-18
17. Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ' ?
18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

NIV Luke 21:22
For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

NIV Luke 22:37
It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

NIV Luke 24:44-47
44. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47. and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

NIV John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."

 

NIV John 6:31
Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "

NIV John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

NIV John 12:14-16
14. Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15. "Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt."
16. At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

NIV John 15:25
But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: `They hated me without reason.'

NIV John 20:30-31
30. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

NIV Acts 1:20
"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "`May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "`May another take his place of leadership.'

NIV Acts 7:42
But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "`Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?

NIV Acts 13:29
When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

NIV Acts 13:32-33
32. "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers
33. he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "`You are my Son; today I have become your Father. '

NIV Acts 15:15-18
15. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16. "`After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
17. that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'
18. that have been known for ages.

NIV Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: `Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' "

NIV Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

NIV Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

NIV Romans 2:24
As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

NIV Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

NIV Romans 3:10-12
10. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11. there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

NIV Romans 4:17
As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

NIV Romans 4:23-24
23. The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,
24. but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

NIV Romans 8:36
As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

NIV Romans 9:13
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

NIV Romans 10:15
And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

NIV Romans 11:7-10
7. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened,
8. as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
9. And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever."

NIV Romans 11:26-27
26. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

NIV Romans 12:19
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

NIV Romans 14:11
It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"

NIV Romans 15:3-4
3. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me."
4. For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

NIV Romans 15:7-12
7. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
8. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs
9. so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name."
10. Again, it says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."
11. And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples."
12. And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him."

NIV Romans 15:21
Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand."

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:31
Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" --

NIV 1 Corinthians 3:19-20
19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" ;
20. and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

NIV 1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:7
Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry."

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:11
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

NIV 1 Corinthians 14:21
In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:54
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

NIV 2 Corinthians 4:13-14
13. it is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken." With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak,
14. because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

NIV 2 Corinthians 8:15
as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

NIV Galatians 3:10
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

NIV Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

NIV Galatians 4:22
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

NIV Galatians 4:27
For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."

NIV Hebrews 10:7
Then I said, `Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'"

NIV 1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

NIV 2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

NIV 1 John 2:12-14
12. I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.
14. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

[Jvette]

*****They were unaware that they were even doing works that pleased God.*****

What they were unaware of was that the things they had done for the least of Christ’s brethren were done for Christ because He lives within them. That is what Jesus is telling them. Just as Jesus accused Saul of persecuting Him when Saul was persecuting the Christians. It is why John says that one cannot love God and hate his neighbor.

In Matthew 25, Jesus is not speaking of pleasing God, but of what we do with the blessings that we have been given.

And is it wrong to want to please God?

Ephesians 5:10 10 Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord.

Colossians 1:9-10

And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

To do God’s will is pleasing to Him. Jesus lived and died to please God.

John 8:29

And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”

Jesus also claimed that the works that He did were a testimony to who He is......

31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus replied, `I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?’
33 The Jews answered, `It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.’
34 Jesus answered, `Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”?
35 If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods” and the scripture cannot be annulled
36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”?
37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me.
38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.’

Are we not also sons and daughters of God? Do our works not reveal His glory to others? Is the Father in us and we in Him?

Who are you to question the motives of others? Do you know their hearts as only God can know them? And what is it that God wants for us? Jesus said God desires that all men be saved? Can it be wrong then to want that for ourselves?

What you call brownie points, Jesus calls treasure in heaven.

If we are moved by love for God to do good works for those who may not deserve those works, isn’t that pleasing to God? If it is not, what does that say about the work of Jesus? After all, Jesus did what He did out of love for God and love for us. Was Jesus not pleasing to God? In the same way, are we not then pleasing to God, and don’t our works, done out of love for Him and for our neighbor, give glory to Him?

Is not the reward for doing God’s will and thus pleasing Him eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Ephesians6:8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

[Jvette]

One last thing, what does the letter Timothy tell us about Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every Good Work.

[Jvette]

Yes, yes, all true. It is written. And what is written about in the New Testament? Jesus revealing the true meaning of what had been written.

Think of this.....many of the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah because He was not exactly what they were expecting, for they did not grasp the true meaning of what had been written. As Jesus said, they did not have the love of God in their hearts. They searched Scripture thinking they had eternal life but failed to come to Jesus because they did not see/find Jesus in the written word.

He had to come in the flesh for the Word to be revealed. Jesus had to come to reveal God’s love and the greatest commandments. Scripture alone was not enough.

What was written had to be interpreted so that all could be understood.

[metmom]

I pointed out that the word Trinity is not in the Bible and millions of Christians accept it as Truth.

The corporal works of mercy are spelled out in Scripture though the specific phrase is not.

Sola Scriptura is spelled out in Scripture even though the specific phrase is not.

The verses showing it have been posted time and again for years and are rejected off hand by every Catholic who reads them. It's a total knee jerk reaction. They've been taught it's wrong by the church and they never even stop to question is. They swallow it whole without even thinking it through.

[metmom]

Sola Scriptura

Scripture is adequate.

[Salvation]

Actually, the detail of the Trinity is in the Bible!

 

Matthew, chapter 28

 

18^{* g} Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19^h Go, therefore,^* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20ⁱ teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.^* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

[Jvette]

Yes, I know. I said the concept is there but the word is not.

[Jvette]

*******Sola Scriptura is spelled out in Scripture even though the specific phrase is not.*****

I am beginning to wonder if you think through what you post.

What Scripture says about Scripture is that it is the inspired Word of God and that from it one can know God, believe in Jesus and be saved.

What Scripture does not say about Scripture is that it is the only way that one can know God, believe in Jesus and be saved.

That’s pretty specific.

*****The verses showing it have been posted time and again for years and are rejected off hand by every Catholic who reads them. It’s a total knee jerk reaction. They’ve been taught it’s wrong by the church and they never even stop to question is. They swallow it whole without even thinking it through.*****

The verses showing the opposite of Sola Scriptura have been posted time and again for years and are rejected off hand by protestants in a knee jerk reaction. They’ve been taught the Church is wrong and never even stop to question it. They swallow it whole without even thinking it through.

See how this works?

It is arrogant and prideful to claim that Catholics do not think this through or are even incapable of doing such.

Considering the number of books written on just this subject by Catholics using Scripture reveals what an insidious claim it is.

Talk about knee jerk reactions!

[Jvette]

Adequate for teaching, rebuking, correcting and for instruction to equip the man of God for every good work.

Yep, that is what the Catholic church believes, holds as true and teaches.

What is doesn’t teach is that which is NOT found anywhere in Scripture and that is that the written Scripture is the only way one can teach, rebuke, correct or instruct. Also, that it is not the only way one can know of salvation.

Praise be to God for His Holy Word and praise be to God for His Holy Church to whom He entrusted the mission of proclaiming His Gospel to the whole world.

[Salvation]

More from the Bible to compliment what you have posted.

http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

[Salvation]

Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

[metmom]

What Scripture says about Scripture is that it is the inspired Word of God and that from it one can know God, believe in Jesus and be saved.

What Scripture does not say about Scripture is that it is the only way that one can know God, believe in Jesus and be saved.

***SIGH***

There's special revelation and general revelation.

General revelation gives us all we need to know about God and His eternal power and divine nature.

Special revelation names names and tells us what Jesus did.

Even John himself said that what he wrote was enough for a person to come to know that Jesus was the son of God and be saved through that, so in essence, all one even needs is the Gospel of John.

But sola Scriptura is not about whether everything God wants us to know about Himself is contained in Scripture or not. That's another argument.

What sola Scriptura is about is Scripture being the final authority to which all claims about God are to be measured. It is the absolute standard of truth by which all truth claims are to be made.

It is authoritative because of its inherent nature of being the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed word of God and in it God tells us that EVERYTHING we need to know to be mature, completely equipped men and women of God can be found in it.

That doesn't mean that other things can't be of benefit, but those other things are not authoritative, nor are they on the same level as Scripture.

If all someone has was a Bible, they could be all God wants them to be, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[metmom]

There are no verses that contradict the concept of Scripture being authoritative and able to man a person mature and completely equipped for every good work.

And if you're referring to the verses where Paul talks about traditions they passed on, then you be the first to answer these questions, because not one single Catholic has ever ventured to give it a try.

Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?

How do you know?

How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?

How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?

What is your source for verifying all of the above?

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.

[metmom]

Answer this also....

So you really think that if there was something so important for us to know for our salvation and spiritual growth, that God would have neglected to include it in His Word?