[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]

Birmingham News ^ | Wednesday, March 01, 2006 | Greg Garrison

[Full Court]

Tradition catching on with Baptists Protestants begin to take part in Ash Wednesday for its theological lessons Wednesday, March 01, 2006 GREG GARRISON News staff writer It used to be that Baptists had nothing to do with Ash Wednesday, a liturgical holiday they associated with Catholics. No more. "It's a good way of putting the congregation in the right mind-set to prepare for Easter," said the Rev. Christopher Hamlin, pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Smithfield. An ecumenical service at 6:30 tonight at Our Lady Queen of the Universe Catholic Church will include participation by three Baptist churches - Baptist Church of the Covenant and Trinity Baptist, both on Southside, and Tabernacle. "For us to go to the Catholic church, that's something new as Baptists," said the Rev. Sarah Jackson Shelton, the Covenant pastor. "It unites us as the bigger church, and with a larger tradition. ... It's being part of a sacred story that belongs to all of us." Other Baptist churches observe the tradition on their own. Fellowship of the Valley, for example, will have a service at 7 tonight at the Lake Cyrus Clubhouse in Hoover. "It's an appreciation for the symbols of our faith, an opportunity to see, feel and touch those symbols," said the fellowship's pastor, the Rev. Michial Lewis. Lewis said the Reformation of the 1500s, when Martin Luther led a reaction against abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, resulted in rejection of traditions such as Lent by many Protestants. "We do emphasize that our relationship with Christ is through faith alone, and the reformers wanted to avoid the appearance that we gain acceptance with God through rituals or symbols," Lewis said. "Now, people can understand the difference. These symbols come alongside as holy reminders." Robert Hodgson, dean of the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship at the American Bible Society in New York City, said many evangelicals are beginning to see the biblical roots of Lent. "Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days and disciplines himself with fasting and prayer." The 40 days of Lent are preparation for Easter, when Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. Easter is April 16 this year for more than a billion Western Christians and April 23 for Eastern Orthodox. Baptists are taking an increased interest in the liturgical season for its theological lessons, Shelton said. "It's important for us to take the opportunity to confess our sin." During many Christian observances of Ash Wednesday, the minister rubs ashes on the foreheads of congregants and says, "You are dust and to dust you shall return," quoting a verse from Genesis. The wearing of ashes is prominent in the New Testament with John the Baptist, who called for repentance and wore sackcloth and ashes. "It's the outward, visible symbol of something that's happening internally," Shelton said. "We too will return to ashes," she said. "There's life beyond that, and hope beyond what we experience in this life." E-mail: ggarrison@bhamnews.com © 2006 The Birmingham News © 2006 al.com All Rights Reserved.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But how do they hear you?"

By the grace of God.

[Titanites]

Red Herring.

Red herring? I've presented actual evidence from the early Church and you want to dismiss it as a red herring. What I quoted was a very small sampling of the volumes of info on the early Church, but you're likely not interested since it doesn't fit your theory.

The teaching of the church as a whole is evidenced by the creeds at that time

But don't misunderstand, the creeds were not the whole teaching of the Church at that time. They are a summary of the very basics, not a catechism of the entire doctrine of the Church. If it was the whole teaching of the early Church then your premise in #140 that "The Catholic church of 300 AD was much closer to Baptists of today than the Catholic church of today" goes out the window. The Baptists of today don't subscribe to the Apostles Creed as their sole catechism as they have many more detailed doctrines not captured by it, just as the Ten Commandments you recite are a summary of convenience of the Decalogue in Exodus and Dueteronomy. The Catholic Church of today believes the very same Apostles Creed you noted. By what your claiming, that would mean the beliefs of present day Baptists and present day Catholics are exactly the same, which isn't true, since both have doctrines that conflict.

[wmfights]

"(By the way, I want to commend you for a good discussion. It's always edifying when people can discuss issues where there is real disagreement without name-calling, imputing bad motives, insult, etc. --- which happens all too often on some FReeper threads...)"

Thank you. I certainly feel the same towards you as well.

________________________________________
"Well, I pray to Jesus probably about 90% of the time. Plus, when I pray to "God," sometimes I'm thinking of the Father and sometimes I'm thinking of the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity.

Do you find yourself directing your prayers to the Trinity, or sometimes to the Holy Spirit?"

I am usually directing my prayers to JESUS, but do ask the HOLY SPIRIT to convict me and help guide my walk. I don't believe I will truly understand the TRINITY (three in one) until I am in heaven, though.
__________________________________
" I do not invoke the dead. I ask intercessions by all who are alive in Christ."

Those that you are asking intercessions by died. Thus you are praying to the dead. We will just disagree on this.

Of course I will pray for you. I regularly pray for all persecuted brothers and sisters in CHRIST and for non believers to come to the LORD.

[Full Court]

Ecclesiastes 9:5  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

[Titanites]

For example, the belief in Limbo which many Catholics taught for centuries and which now may be categorically done away with. Some of the other practices such as latin Mass and certain penalties for various things have changed over the years. Doctrines have been added. Infant Baptism was not OFFICIAL until the 4th century. Prior to this, sprinkling was often a concession (if you couldn't immerse- you were allowed to sprinkle)

These don't demonstrate that Church doctrine of today contradicts Church doctrine held 50 years ago or 500 years ago, as you claimed in post #140.

Limbo has never been a Church doctrine. Latin used in the Mass is a rite, not a doctrine (note that there are 22 churches in the Catholic Church, and there are many different rites used within those Churches, all of which are acceptable and contradict no doctrines). When you say infant baptism became official, means that it was formalized in a Council and does not mean it wasn't a sanctioned practice earlier or that it contradited an earlier doctrine. All your examples are red herrings of doctrine being contradicted.

[wmfights]

"Pagans use to have the "Queen of Babylon" that they prayed to. I'm not sure but I suspect that this where all this began in your church, when pagans were incorporated converted into the church during Constantine's era they brought some of their beliefs with them.

No."
_____________________________________________

Pagans came into the church and nothing changed, non of your practices, doctrine or titles.

Where did the name pontiff come from?

Under Constantine the church and state were one.

Under Constantine changes in worship included incense being used, choirs were developed, riches and pomp were seen as GOD'S favor (until this time Christianity was largely a faith of the poor). Churches were built on top of martyrs graves and bones were put on display - you would receive special consideration by touching the martyr's bones.

Under Constantine the power of the State was used to punish heretics. If you don't believe the State's doctrine you are a heretic.

As Pagans were forced into the church and baptized they brought in their tradition of praying to various gods for specific things, that was changed to praying to Saints.

[Blogger]

Red herring is still a red herring. You know and I know that many of these issues did not make it into the Creeds because they were still being contested at that time. For example, Mary as Mother of God doesn't show up in the creeds until a little later (I think mid 400s.) I also never said that Baptists ascribe to any creed. If you knew about Baptists, we are non-Creedal people. The local church decides what it believes based upon Scripture. What I did say is that they would not find anything to disagree with as long as the words of the creed were properly understood (such as small c catholic). Those were the officially agreed upon teachings at the time. Baptists would have fit right in there. Later, they wouldn't have because the Creeds start adding diffent things that aren't in Scripture into them or things which the Scriptural interpretation thereof would not be acceptable to Baptists or most Protestants (are we to believe that the Catholics have the ONLY possible interpretation of the Eucharist and almost ALL Protestant and Baptist denominations have gotten it wrong? Clearly, Scripture has allowed enough gray area on that subject that you can come up with various interpretations).

We are not going to agree, it is clear. But be careful when quoting me. When I say Baptists identify more closely with the official teachings in 300, I am discussing the officially voted upon Creeds of the church. Not the other doctrines which Catholics officially accepted later as matters of faith and official doctrine.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Wisdom, Chapter 3
1 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.
2 They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction
3 and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.

OR, from 1 Corinthians 15:

"...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain...Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."

Is Jesus dead or alive? Are the believers in Christ who have gone before us dead, or alive in Christ?

[wmfights]

"...stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?"
________________________________

Absolutely!

[wmfights]

"It's a wonder to me to think about how God has made the whole plan for history."
_______________________________

What I am "knocked down by" are some of the prophecies.

For example: the timing of JESUS the CHRIST and his Crucifixion follows exactly what Daniel predicted after Nehemiah was given authority to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

All the evidence you need to come and recognize your need to be saved and that the SAVIOR is JESUS is in SCRIPTURE.

[Full Court]

1 Thessalonians 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again,
even so them also which sleep in Jesus
will God bring with him.

[Full Court]

For example: the timing of JESUS the CHRIST and his Crucifixion follows exactly what Daniel predicted after Nehemiah was given authority to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

A couple of months ago our pastor showed us this!!!

Are you Baptist?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

The Old Testament portrays the destination of those who have departed this earthly life as Sheol, Hebrew for the "abode of the dead," a comfortless place, where both the good and the evil live a shadowy existence like wraiths, in silence and oblivion, with neither reward nor punishment.

In the quote you cited from Ecclesiates, there seems to be no afterlife destination at all, but merely "the grave". The Book of Ecclesiates continues, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave [Sheol], where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." (Ecc. 9:5-10, NIV)

You can see from many, many OT references to Sheol, that there was not yet a revelation from God about the gift of Eternal Life. I'm just copying the following from an on-line concordance, so you can check it out fo yourself:

Genesis 37:33-35; Genesis 42:37-38; Genesis 44:27-31; Numbers 16:23-33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:5-6; 1 Kings 2:6; 1 Kings 2:9; Job 7:9-10; Job 11:7-8; Job 14:11-14; Job 17:13-16; Job 21:13; Job 24:19; Job 26:6; Psalms 6:5; Psalms 9:17; Psalms 16:10; Psalms 18:4-5; Psalms 30:3; Psalms 31:17; Psalms 49:14-15; Psalms 55:15; Psalms 86:13; Psalms 88:3; Psalms 89:48; Psalms 116:3; Psalms 139:8; Psalms 141:7; Proverbs 1:11-12; Proverbs 5:5; Proverbs 7:27; Proverbs 9:18; Proverbs 15:11; Proverbs 15:24; Proverbs 23:14; Proverbs 27:20; Proverbs 30:16; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Isaiah 5:14; Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 14:11; Isaiah 14:15; Isaiah 28:15; Isaiah 28:18; Isaiah 38:10; Isaiah 38:18; Isaiah 57:9; Ezekiel 31:15-17; Ezekiel 32:21; Ezekiel 32:27; Hosea 13:14; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habbakuk 2:5

My point is, it wasn't until Jesus lived, died, and rose again for our salvation, that the Church received the fullness of the revelation about Eternal Life.

As far as the Old Testament people knew, the grave was The End. St. Paul says, "If Christ was not raised...those who have fallen asleep in Christ are the deadest of the dead." (1 Cor. 16-17)

I believe in the Resurrection. And I believe that those believers in Christ who have departed this earthly life are alive in Christ.

[wmfights]

"Are you Baptist?"

____________________________

Yes Ma'am!

I was raised an Episcopalian, began reading the SCRIPTURE seriously came to realize I needed to be born again. I asked the LORD to save my wretched soul.Years later I had moved and noticed a Baptist Church down the street from me walked in and have never looked back. I was baptized a year later.

[Titanites]

Even the formerly anathematized Protestants (see Council of Trent) are now considered "Separated Brethren" (Vatican II) or something to that affect whose baptism may be valid if done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Though apparently Catholics believe we will do a little more purgatory time.

Vatican II did not change Church doctrine about rebaptism. Before Vatican II and after, the Church doctrine was St. Paul's doctrine "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism". The Church forbids the repetition of the sacrament, once validly administered, even for converts.

Official Baptist doctrine comes from Scripture. Baptists being independent, there is some lee-way on non essentials so you may see some Arminian Baptists for example and some some Calvinsts, some pre Trib Rapture folks and some Amillenial. Scripture is where most of the doctrines of the early Creeds came from (yes, after some debate over what Scripture means).

But you neglect to mention that some doctrines dealing with the essentials of salvation varies among Baptists. For example, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. By being independent, Baptists who read the same scripture arrive at opposing doctrines.

Catholic doctrine comes from Scripture plus Catholic tradition. The latter moves about fairly frequently depending upon what pressures are being placed upon the church at the time (such as will we see a softening on the stance on contraception? which some would consider a mortal sin?) or who happens to be in the Papal/Cardinal seats at the time.

Could you please provide some examples of Catholic doctrine that has changed because of pressures being placed upon the church or because of who happens to be in the "Papal/Cardinal" seats at the time. As far as softening on the stance on contraception, that is purely speculation on your part. And as far your comment that some consider contraception a mortal sin (or not) does not change Church doctrine or teaching.

[Blogger]

Calvinism verses Arminianism is NOT an essential. It is a secondary. Salvation by Grace through faith alone is a primary.

When I have more time I will answer you further. But, your point regarding my point on mortal sin backs up my previous point that just because somebelieve it, teaches it, etc., it is not official until it is official. Now if it were in the catechism, I'd say that is more official. If it just something in Benedicts writings as a Cardinal, it isn't official doctrine.

[Flavius Josephus]

The priest mumbled in Latin as we turned pages in our bi-lingual missals trying to follow along, the altar boys gave the responses in rushed Latin and the choir sang the hymns on behalf of the faithful. While all of this was going on, the seasoned women clacked their rosary beads in prayer, totally dissociated from the Mass

This is indeed how it was described to us in RCIA.

Unfortunately, the renegade liberalists took over their 'interpretation' of VCII documentation, imposing irrational changes that are totally contradictory with those intended by the writers.

Exactly right, and I meant it when I said they are probably largely atheistic communists who see the church as an opiate that should be kept around to comfort people, but not have any political or traditional power or authority in people's lives. Thank God we have a Pope who was present at the time of VCII, and knows exactly what was intended.

Thank you for your kind explanation. It will help me to forgive and not feel so angry when I see well meaning, and deeply religious people like our Basilians seemingly chasing headlong after the Episcopalians.

The thing I love so much about the Catholic (and High Anglican) liturgy are the myriad symbols and actions that connect us back to the earliest known practices of the Church at Worship. Including Gregorian Chant, and including the TLM.

Now I see our mission as being the task of taking the old TLM out of the attic, cleaning off the dust, removing the many layers of paint and varnish, and polishing it to the lustre that it deserves.

I feel more of a sense of the sacrificial when I use a very special and beautiful language to present my self and my soul to the Lord. I see now that when it is presented in a fully voluntary, dignified, and reverential way with the full participation of the congregation both in the responses and the schola itself, the mass transcends any worship that the Church has ever attained, either in Latin or the vernacular. It is something unique, it is "other", it is Holy.

Thanks for taking the time to write your post, it has really opened my eyes.

[Flavius Josephus]

The Catholic church of 300 AD was much closer to Baptists of today than the Catholic church of today.

That's because you rely on sola YOPIO scriptura, and ignore the Church's experience and tradition.

[Blogger]

What is YOPIO?

[Titanites]

also never said that Baptists ascribe to any creed. If you knew about Baptists, we are non-Creedal people. The local church decides what it believes based upon Scripture. What I did say is that they would not find anything to disagree with as long as the words of the creed were properly understood (such as small c catholic).

So do the Baptists believe what's stated in the Apostles Creed or not? It was you who pointed to the Apostles Creed as evidence that early Church doctrine is the same as present-day Baptist belief.

Those were the officially agreed upon teachings at the time.

The Apostles Creed was not a comprehensive catechism of all agreed upon teachings at the time. It is a summary of basic Christian belief.

(are we to believe that the Catholics have the ONLY possible interpretation of the Eucharist and almost ALL Protestant and Baptist denominations have gotten it wrong?

You are correct in that there are many interpretations of scripture regarding the Eucharist but yes, almost all Protestant and Baptist denominations have gotten it wrong. The Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Latin rite Catholics, and all Eastern rite Catholics have gotten it correct. That is, the vast majority of Christianity correctly interprets Scripture regarding the Eucharist.

Clearly, Scripture has allowed enough gray area on that subject that you can come up with various interpretations).

It isn't that Scripture allows various interpretations, as there is only one interpretation of Scripture that is correct. Otherwise you are arguing that the Holy Spirit contradicts himself.