The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[Irisshlass]

Show me where the scriptures I posted where taken out of context.

[JHavard]

I'm reading it out of a Catholic Imprimatur Bible -- a Douay Rheims version -- take it up with them.

Hahaha, great "gotchya", and great post, and don't let the RC's and the RC look-a-likes mocking bother you, just keep sending these thought provoking post, and ignore them, as most of us NC's have had to learn to do. (^g^) JH

[SoothingDave]

That said, from personal experience combined with documentaries and readings, your church seems to think that waving crosses and saying 'in the name of the father, son and holy ghost go away' has some importance. Waving symbols is of no use, nor is the invocation of non-specific authority. It may look and sound impressive; but, it is of no practical use.

Thanks, Fury, I forgot this one. I am sure Havoc will correct me, but it looks like he is saying that "the name of the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit" is some type of "non-specific authority."

Havoc, we Catholics know who the Godhead is. Do you?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Who wants in?

Not me! Been there. Done that.

[SoothingDave]

You can't be serious. How is it you can be so flippant concerning Scripture and so serious about what you consider a personal affront? Are your priorities misplaced?

It says they "cast lots." That is a game of chance. The same thing "casting lots" is used by the soldiers who divide up Jesus' garments. Do you think the Centurions voted on it, or did they gamble for it?

Are you selective in what you choose to answer?

Yes, at times. Aren't we all?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Wouldn't it be fun to shoot a few rounds while you're waiting for the spin cycle?

Can't get away from "spin" can you?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Methinks Big Mack is Proselytizeing! Tch, tch.

We also serve cheese at our services. :)

BigMack

[IMRight]

Yet 90% of the time nobody really proves what he's saying is incorrect.

Then by all means, let's prove some.

By the way. Steven is not gay! (I may have to add that to all posts today).

Woodkirk, let's try your "scholarship out on some other words, shall we?:

Fundament = "The buttocks, the anus"
- al = "of, relating to, or characterized by"
- ist = "one who plays with a specific thing"
Fund = An organization established to collect money.
Mental = "affected by a mental disorder"
Mentalist = "one who believes he performs telepathy"

So a fundament +al +ist equals what?

So is "a person afflicted by a mental disorder characterized by playing with the buttock or anus" a "valid" definition for "fundamentalist"? Or "One who performs telepathy with his butt"? Or maybe "one who pulls definitions to made up words out of his butt"?

Let's try another:

Pente = Greek root for "5"
Cost = "to cause to suffer"
Al = "characterized by"

So a pentacostal is a person who is "characterized by causing five guys to suffer"? Does this mean that they don't believe in the Trinity? That they have five gods?

And we've already learned that "objectionable little insect" is a "valid" definition (by your "scholarship") for "protestant" right?

This root stuff is teaching me soooo much.

Disclaimer to all the rational people on the board. I am not (as woodkirk obviously is) trying to say that Fundamentalists or Pentacostals are or believe anything I just posted (so stay off my back). This is merely an attempt to show Woodkirk's "scholarship" for what it is, intentional falsehood with no factual support. The definitions I just gave are every bit as "valid" as his "God of Usury" - which is to say not at all.

JHavard - "thought provoking" enough for you?

[Wordsmith]

Re. consecration of the host. I'm fuzzy on the details, but this is what I know. We definitely believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Gifts. We don't define exactly at what point during the Liturgy this presence begins, but affirm that it definitely and only occurs during the Liturgy, the common work of the faithful. The Gifts can be kept in a special vessel, and these are used by the priest to provide communion to those in the hospital or bedridden. I believe that Gifts are set aside for this purpose after every Liturgy, but am not certain. There are definite rules for when Liturgies may be conducted, governed by the Church calendar. We do not allow multiple Liturgies to be performed on the same day, so we do not perform Saturday evening Liturgies or multiple Sunday Liturgies. Weekend communion is limited to Sunday mornings only (the early hours just after midnight on Easter.) During the Lenten season only, we perform on particular weekdays a service called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. This is the only time that communion is taken in the Church at a time other than during a Liturgy at which the Gifts have been consecrated.

We do not reverence the Gifts specifically, although I do not see why we wouldn't. All Orthodox Churches maintain a full altar, partitioned from the main body of the Church, and there are very specific rules as to who may enter and why. The primary reason for this reverence of the altar is due to the belief that this is where the Holy Spirit descends upon the Holy Gifts. Orthodox may bow, or even do a full prostration, before the altar entrance at any point of the week or year, as a sign of reverence for Christ and the Gifts which are consecrated there. It is not taught that we are specifically reverencing the Gifts that may be present at any given time for use with the bedridden. Hope this helps. God Bless.

[SoothingDave]

And what does your rule say

Do try to keep up. It says "Thou Shalt Not suppose what might be said in a different language than what the Scripture was written in."

This means that if the text is in Greek you can't make any argument about what it might have meant if it were in Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever.

and do you follow your own rules?

They are not my rules, but rather the rules of certain NC's here. Nothing is to be considered which violates this rule.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Yeah, sure, but a few rounds of turkey bacon to go with it and you'll be yearning for home. :-)

Turkey bacon isn't half bad if done in the microwave. "Bacon" is a misnomer though. "Lean turkey concoction manufactured to appear like bacon" is a better description.

[SoothingDave]

Can't get away from "spin" can you?

LOL. "Next time say 'rinse,'Dave"

SD

[Wordsmith]

No cheese or moose for me during Lent. :-)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

angelo, IMRight said, gay, buttocks, and anus! :)

BigMack

[IMRight]

I'm assigning myself punishment. "Mr Right", You have freepmail.

[trad_anglican]

I must have been thinking of Lutherans. If you have a tabernacle and believe that the change to the Real Presence is permanent, why is adoration a problem?

Because I think Cranmer had a point, to a point. This is my own personal view on it and is not in any way an "official" Anglican position. I believe that Jesus instituted the eucharist as a single and complete ritual. The various parts of the ritual must be taken together as a whole. To consecrate the bread for a purpose other than communion is, in my own view, introducing an element that is beyond what Jesus wants us to do. I believe that whatever happens to the elements, happens during the consecration. But I think the "perfection" of the sacrament is communion, not consecration. That is not to say that consecreated, un-communicated hosts and chalice are not truly the body and blood of Christ.

I also have uneasiness with the elevation during the consecration prayer. The practice originated during medeival times when the laity only communicated once or twice a year. The elevation was the "plain folks'" only chance to communicate with Christ during the Mass. This is a perfect example of why the Church really did need reform at the time of the reformation.

As for using previously consecrated hosts at a Mass, this is almost unavoidable. Ideally, everyone would be able to partake of the Lord consecrated at the service they are attending, but "backups" are needed.

I agree. But the reserved sacrament is the "primary" not the backup and that's what I disagree with.

[SoothingDave]

During the Lenten season only, we perform on particular weekdays a service called the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. This is the only time that communion is taken in the Church at a time other than during a Liturgy at which the Gifts have been consecrated.

Outside of Lent, would you have a normal Liturgy on a weekday? (Like we have normal weekday morning Masses.)

We have a similar type of thing on Good Friday. It (and the saturday following) is the only day of the year when no Mass is performed. If you go to "Mass" that day, there is no Mass. There is a service like a Mass, but there is no consecration, just a distribution of pre-consecrated hosts.

We do not reverence the Gifts specifically, although I do not see why we wouldn't. All Orthodox Churches maintain a full altar, partitioned from the main body of the Church, and there are very specific rules as to who may enter and why. The primary reason for this reverence of the altar is due to the belief that this is where the Holy Spirit descends upon the Holy Gifts. Orthodox may bow, or even do a full prostration, before the altar entrance at any point of the week or year, as a sign of reverence for Christ and the Gifts which are consecrated there.

We have a gesture of bowing for the Altar, but a genuflection for the Real Presence in the Tabernacle. If you can find it! (Church "wreckovators" like to hide the Tabernacle)

SD

[Havoc]

There are many things, including spiritual things, that exist whether you have seen them or not. A person who declines to accept their existence is not working on the basis of sound reason, but on "blind faith," and someone who insists nothing exists beyond what his senses can detect--particularly someone who rejects out of hand the supernatural--might be called out of sync with reality. A man who rejects the supernatural is like a physician who rejects bacteria. You begin to think he isn't all there. A physician who says bacteria aren't real, operates from prejudice, not science, and someone who says the supernatural isn't real operates the same way.

If anyone understood a word of what she said, would they mind translating?

[Havoc]

Ahhhhhhhhh, I was right, Irishlass is the anti-Havoc. LOL

Did I just get zinged? LOL

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If anyone understood a word of what she said, would they mind translating?

Sure Hav. No prob. What she said is I'm catholic and therefore I'm always right. You, on the other hand, are a spiritual serf. :-)