Posted on 02/25/2009 12:56:41 PM PST by NYer
Here is the question I asked that you ignore time and again. Why won’t you answer?
Why must there be a strict Biblical instruction for the specific Lenten acts of penance, prayers or for almsgiving? All three sets of pius practices and spiritual exercise are themselves clearly Biblical, no?
{{{I ASK AGAIN and AGAIN}}}}
I have answered several times, and you have apparently missed them. I am not objecting to the practices you mentioned. There is certainly Biblical support for them. What I am objecting to is the alleged "season" of Lent, as if there was Biblical support for it. There is not. And there are many who believe that these "sacrifices" are obligatory. I certainly spoke to a lot of Roman Catholic soldiers during my years as an Army chaplain who were under the impression that the practices of Lent were obligatory. The fact is, they are not. Doesn't mean we don't do those things, but they have no value if not done completely voluntarily.
I am not objecting to the practices you mentioned. There is certainly Biblical support for them.Well good.
What I am objecting to is the alleged "season" of Lent, as if there was Biblical support for it.Why must you insist that the seasons have specific Biblical support when they simply signify an agreed time to practice what you concede are clearly Christian acts? Does not Holy Writ say that Paul said “Much time had now passed and sailing had become hazardous because the time of the fast had already gone by..” -- what "time of fast" was that?
Doesn't mean we don't do those things, but they have no value if not done completely voluntarily.Every adult Catholic who follows the laws of the Church does so as a free man. The choice to sin or not is ours just as it is yours, ditto the choice to pray, to fast or to give alms. Your very odd attempts to detract from the pious practices of others confuses me. Why do you do this?
Touche, Narses.
We’re Catholics! One great advantage is we don’t have to be neurotically, compulsively “Biblical”! We have zillions of beneficial, devout, time-tested practices and prayers that increase one’s holiness and bring grace, and have been practiced for centuries.
The internet is not “Biblical”...you sola types might want to get offline: this is probably a tool of the devil invented by Papists to ensnare you into non-Biblical practices like fasting, practicing the Works of Mercy, praying the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet and other scary, dangerous things.
:)
Well, it says in the New Testament that Christ fasted and prayed in the desert for 40 days. Catholics choose to emulate Him during the season of Lent. Catholics are required to take up the cross and follow Christ. Following Christ involves dying to yourself and sacrifice. Catholics do this voluntarily. It’s really rather beautiful. We do it together as a united community during Lent. We can fast and abstain from meat to honor God any time we want, of course; but we do it together at Lent.
Christ was a Jew. He followed all the Jewish feasts every year of His life. There are Jewish feasts involving a “season” of penitence and reconciliation. Was He following those obligatory Jewish customs “voluntarily?” Of course. He obviously believed ritual and tradition and custom were valuable— He practiced them all! And He even set up new ones!
You seem to object because Catholics choose to try to emulate Christ’s actions by fasting and praying for 40 days. As a chaplain, you must know the significance of the number 40. If this method of prayer and sacrifice, a season of purification, was good enough for Jesus, as is documented in the Bible, then it’s certainly good enough for us Catholics. If Jesus did it, that’s all the “biblical support” anybody should need.
Catholicism is the most wonderful, deep, and gorgeous spiritual experience. I invite anyone who wants to learn the facts of Catholicism, or feels the need to “correct” us, to read books on it by Madrid, Kreeft, and Hahn. Just read one of these books before casting a stone. Most of their books examine Catholicism from a Protestant perspective, but are factual about Catholicism.
This is unclear.
but they have no value if not done completely voluntarily.
I'm not sure what sort of "value" we're talking about here. And I'm not sue what completely voluntary might mean, on the ground. DO my taxes, or my community service, or my complying with a request of my wife have no value unless that are, every minute, completely voluntary?
This sounds like it might be what I call the "country music heresy". In its full-blown form this heresy goes, "I know longer FEEL in love with you, so I am free to fool around with somebody else for whom I have [unspecified] 'feelings.'"
When my wife and I are having a big disagreement (for example, when she fails to pay homage to my obvious wonderfulness), I may not FEEL like I love her, but it is still important for me to remember I love her and to tell her so and to behave in a loving way, because love is not a feeling.
When I feel as unwilling to go to Mass as I feel right now, sometimes it is all the more important to haul my sorry behind into a pew because my relationship with Christ is not merely about feelings. Feelings are the gravy, the meat is in the commitment.
Yes, certain aspects of spiritual discipline are laid on Catholics as "obligatory". It has been shown on this thread that even as it touches the lengthy interval before Easter (and what's wrong with the word "season?") these disicplines vary among different groups which are Catholic, Romans doing one thing, Maronites another, Byzantines yet another.
But what they all share is an aspect of community, namely: shared activity. What kind of marriage would it be if husband and wife shared in no activity, and is sometimes one of them shared, not for the sake of the activity but for the sake of the sharing?
And please be clear that these are NOT rigid requirements. If a Catholic CAN fast, then he should. If medical conditions or extreme situations, (warfare, for instance) make that impossible, then he can still "keep" Lent.
I supper viewed objectively it could be a judgment call. But what kind of participation in a relationship is it when one of the members says, "I agree with you on what I hold to be the critical issues, but I don't care to share with you in worship or prayer except when I want to."
I have already discussed the Catholic for whom the obligation is some external and arbitrary nuisance. I would say such a person is immature. But even those who delay their childhood into adulthood may someday grow up, and until they do, it is not so bad for the Church to say what the expectations are.
good grief that sounds gross! LOL! i will stick with the home made pierogies that the Orthodox church women make to sell during lent!
Christ was a Jew. He followed all the Jewish feasts every year of His life. There are Jewish feasts involving a “season” of penitence and reconciliation. Was He following those obligatory Jewish customs “voluntarily?” Of course. He obviously believed ritual and tradition and custom were valuable— He practiced them all! And He even set up new ones!It appears that penitential seasons are, in fact, Biblical then. Any more attacks on those of us who are starting our Lenten imitation of Our Lord?
Do you understand the New Covenant? Instituted at the Resurrection, it negated all the ceremonial portions of the Torah. Jesus is now the fulfillment of all the ceremonial law. If you chose to live under the Law, Paul says you will be judged by the Law...and you don’t want that.
LOL, you have an interesting and flawed view of the New Covenant. Our Lord also founded a visible Church, appointed Apostles who had themselves the ability and authority to appoint successors and instituted the Sacraments by which the Visible Church was to minister to all the nations.
What odd authority do you claim to teach such dfalsehoods as you do?
And with that, we will probably need to end this debate. But, that is the position of Protestants...we reject "Romanism" and it's claims to exclusive authority within the Church. And we reject the assertion that my ordination, for instance, is invalid because I was not ordained by a celibate man who fails to meet the qualifications for a leader in the church as recorded in the Apostle Paul's letters to Timothy (chap 3) and Titus. There is valid ministry outside of the Roman Catholic Church...not the least of which is the Orthodox Church, which doesn't recognize the Pope as The Vicar of Christ.
LOL, what “authority” was cited in your “ordination”? What denomination do you claim authorizes your spreading of falsehoods and efforts to undermine the pious practices of Christians?
U think we kind of guessed that.
And with that, we will probably need to end this debate.
Debate? You call that a debate? I saw no debate. I barely saw a "frank exchange of views:" with the usual frustrating aspect that the characterization of the Catholic view seemed to me to be rich with misunderstanding of it -- as is often the case. IMHO this was more shadow boxing than debate.
I have studied the Roman Catholic Church extensively. I wonder if you really understand what the Church teaches. Have you studied Roman Catholicism as it is practiced outside of the US...very different from the American iteration.
Anyway, may your Lenten season be all that you need it to be.
Comments such as your #73 are a great Catholic “Cliffsnotes” for readers such as myself. That this particular comment describes another Rite, with its elegance and richness, is a bonus. Thanks. I shall look for the Byzantine thread presently.
Thanks for your kind thoughts.
Who knows, maybe I don’t understand Catholicism. On the other hand I do distinguish between a “denomination” as a social phenomenon and a the teaching of that group.
I mean, among some, Catholics have a reputation for being anti-sex. And it may well be that in Catholicism as in other groups, humanity’s endemic conflicts about sex show themselves in less than benign ways.
But just as one will find a lot of sick people in hospitals, so one can find a lot of confused people clustering around what just might be a source of truth. I mean it’s not clear that the, so to speak, “religious neurosis” of a lot of Catholics is caused by the Catholic Church, any more than the sickness of hospital patients is caused by the hospital.
The “story” about hot Baptist chicks in Jackson, MS was that since they were “saved” they felt perfectly safe in engaging in fornication. I’m not sure that was true, I’m just saying it was the story. But even if it WERE true, I wouldn’t blame it on Baptist teaching.
So who knows? Maybe I am provincial in my outlook. I just see you suggesting that a sense of oppressive anxiety about Lent which was exhibited by some people you spoke to is the fault of Catholic teaching.
I see the anxiety. I see the Church. I don’t think the Church causes the anxiety any more than I think hospitals cause obesity in the patients who consult physicians but do not comply and may not even understand what the physicians say.
That some people suffer from anorexia nervosa is not the fault of people who say that eating too much has undesirable health consequences. That some people have a self-defeating approach to Lent may not be Lent’s fault.
You avoid answering simple questions. I will restate, who ordained you, when and in what capacity?
I was ordained by the American Baptist denomination in 1979 as a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hold a Master of Divinity degree from Talbot School of Theology, BIOLA University, La Mirada, California.
Thank you for the post. Lots of inspiration and thoughts to contemplate and meditate on.
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.