Posted on 11/01/2009 3:53:11 AM PST by GonzoII
Yep, “going to Church” is not comparable.
No, it isn't shabby at all. But I'd like to see some stats re how many of the supposedly 69+ million Catholics in America faithfully attend the daily Mass.
....Catholics account for nearly 23 percent (64.8 million) of the U.S. population, the single largest faith group in the United States. But only 33 percent of U.S. Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis, according to a 2005 poll by CARA Catholic Poll...Related threads:A growing minority of self-identified Catholic adults haven't made their first reconciliation, received their First Communion or been confirmed, according to research from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University....Still, the number of Catholics in the U.S. has remained stable because of the immigration of Latinos. The U.S. has 69.1 million Catholics, about 23 percent of the population.
Nota bena, this is officially what the Catholic Church provides for her flock, she can't "force feed it". It's got to come from the heart.
No one can say that the Catholic Church "discourages Bible reading" after reading these stats.
www.catholicnewsagency.com
The Commemoration of All The Faithful Departed (All Souls)
November 2, 2009
Psalter: Proper
Color: White
Saints:
Daily Readings:
|
“Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”.”
That is the root of our disagreements. ‘Sacred Tradition’ is NOT something passed down from the Apostles, but is the continuous revealing (clarifying / unfolding) of truth to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. For a Catholic, it is essential the scriptures be read in their ‘light’, and thus the ‘Church’ must do the interpreting to prevent error.
For if one simply READS the words of God (”God-breathed”), then one not only CAN come to a different conclusion, but USUALLY does. Hence the push by reformers to get scripture into the hands of the laity in their own tongue. Wycliffe felt confident that it would win the argument for him, and I agree.
“Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” - 2 John
Hard to abide in teaching that hasn’t been ‘unfolded’ yet...but those who do abide have “both the Father and the Son”.
“No one can say that the Catholic Church “discourages Bible reading” after reading these stats. “
It IS nice to see the improvement following Vatican 2, and it had already improved before then. However, at the time of the Reformation, the Bishop of Gloucester surveyed 311 deacons, archdeacons and priests, and found that 168 were unable to repeat the 10 Commandments, 31 didn’t know where the 10 Commandments came from, and 40 could neither repeat the Lord’s Prayer nor say who the author of the Prayer was!
That is worth remembering when we debate things like “Reformation Day”. The Reformers not only started new congregations (the word typically translated church in the NT), but the competition has moved the Catholic Church in the right direction...
I don't think anyone would say that at the time of the Reformation Luther was suffering from poor eyesight when viewing the state (human) of the Catholic Church. As far as Bible reading is concerned it's important to remember the the printing press had just recently been invented, so I think we could say that the beginning so to speak of more folks studying Scripture began to take root during Reformation times.
one can, and has, arrive at all sorts of heresy like Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and infinite variations which continue to this day.
Having your own church and interpretations of the same words guarantees nothing, least of all accurate theology.
Well, since YOU asked....
Sorry, but if you're referring to the Catholic Church faithfully handling the truth, I would respectfully disagree. Please recall how the Jews felt THEY were the keepers of the faith until King Josiah happened to uncover the word of God hidden in the temple. They felt they could just go about worshiping God in any form they wanted. Wrong. It was when the people read the word of God hidden for all those years that they discovered their errors. Yet, once King Josiah passed the people did not follow after the ways of God, following His word.
In much the same way do I see the Reformation. Indeed I would argue there are strong parallels to King Josiah and the Reformation.
It's not an exaggeration to say that the Church (as much of Protestantism afterwards) has decided to essentially chuck the scriptures for this "feely-go" view of the gospel. Much of the Catholics on this site will cast doubts about the authenticity of scriptures as well as some Protestants. As this article (and Alex) points out, scripture is rarely used any longer. Mass does not use it much. Most Protestant churches tend to substitute anecdotal stories after reading a verse or two.
Less we forget, the holy scriptures of God is God-breathed words directly to us. At least, so thought the early Christians. In those holy scriptures is the power to save the lost and equip the saints. This power does not rest in reciting some sort of mass, reciting anecdotal stories, or listening to "mother Church". The gospel is the power of God; a miracle handed down to us that we so carelessly disregard it like manna from heaven. People who have a low view where they question the validity of God's word, might as well question the purpose of manna dropping from heaven. As we may recall from the holy scriptures, the people were so ungrateful to God's providence that God sent a plague on them.
If you believe mother Church to provide you insight, then you do not believe in the power of God to provide you insight. It's that simple and that sad.
Good point!
For if one simply READS the words of God (God-breathed), then one not only CAN come to a different conclusion, but USUALLY does. Hence the push by reformers to get scripture into the hands of the laity in their own tongue. Wycliffe felt confident that it would win the argument for him, and I agree.
Hence this quote from the October 2008 Synod of Bishops, on the thread A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today [article from America: The National Catholic Weekly:
...while fewer believers know much about the Bible, one-third of Americans continue to believe that it is literally true, something organizers of the Synod on the Word of God called a dangerous form of fundamentalism that is winning more and more adherents even among Catholics. Such literalism, the synods preparatory document said, demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research....See also this thread, covering the same Synod:
"As we begin the work of this synodal assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, let us turn our gaze to Christ, the light of the world and our only teacher," Cardinal Levada encouraged.The prelate's point was further developed when Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec, took the floor to affirm that the Word is much more than the Bible. He clarified that Christianity is not a religion of the Book.
"The Word of God means before all else God himself who speaks, who expresses in himself the divine Word that belongs to his intimate mystery," he said.
This Word, he added during his Latin-language discourse, which he delivered seated beside the Pope, speaks in a particular and also dramatic way in the history of man, especially in the election of a people, in the Mosaic law and the prophets.
Whatever your view of Holy Tradition, that the Word of God is not limited to the words of Scripture is very obviously true. To believe otherwise is quite an absurd position. That’s again, I’m guessing, a sola scriptura result?
Dangerous to whom? Oh, I know, to the Home Office, pictured below:
The natural American aversion to central government is fine in secular matters and the Church shares it, thanks to the principle of subsidiarity, but the idea that leaving the understanding of Scripture to the individual has been a positive development is simply not borne out by history.
Isn't God a better father than that? I think so. Would a parent say to a child "figure it out for yourself" or would he say "here lies the truth; all else is error"?
I vote for the latter.
***Didn’t Jesus take care to instruct the apostles to pass on only what they had been taught?***
And that’s what scripture is,they wrote down what we need..
The Magesterium is a bunch of made up hooey.
“Having your own church and interpretations of the same words guarantees nothing, least of all accurate theology.”
Perhaps, but IGNORING the plain meaning of a scripture in favor of one that uses one or two verses to support Purgatory, or none at all to supporting confessions to priests, all in order to conform it to a tradition that was NOT passed down from the Apostles, but ‘unfolded’ later on pretty well guarantees bad theology.
If one wants to achieve falsehood, then pretending to read scripture while forcing on it meanings from traditions that consist of men’s opinions expressed over hundreds or a thousand years is a good way to make one’s goal!
Yes, this is definitely the crux of our differences. The idea that the Catholic Church is somehow an obstacle between God and man reminds me of the attitude of some kids who see their parents as an "obstacle" to having fun or living life the way they think it should be lived.
However, in reality, it's not an either/or situation. It's not a choice between "the Church" on the one hand and "the individual" on the other. Of course God can and does provide man with insight. This in no way negates the role of the Church, however. Spiritual inspiration comes to man every day but in the overall plan of salvation, God established a group of men, a structure, to keep his Word intact, preserve the truth and shelter us from the storm.
Our personal insight needs a point of reference unless we wish to claim infallibility for ourselves. We're happy to say that the Scriptures are infallible (and they are) but infallible Scriptures are of little use without an infallible interpreter (the Church). What use is a secure lock without a key to open it? What use is a clever piece of machinery in the hands of someone who is not familiar with it?
An infallible Word of God needs to be safeguarded by an infallible Church. The two go together.
That is my point. The Magisterium does NOT pass on only what they have been taught from the Apostles or Jesus.
Here is how the New Catholic Encyclopedia describes how sacred tradition and the Magisterium 'unfolded' the Immaculate Conception:
As regards truths such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there have been uncertainties and controversies over the very substance of the subjects involved. The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ). It will be readily understood that in some circumstances, when the question is put explicitly for the first time, the faithful have hesitated. It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightened piety. Thus did St. Anselm, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception. But the living idea of Mary in the mind of the Church implied absolute exemption from all sin without exception, even from original sin; the faithful whom theological preoccupations did not prevent from beholding this idea in its purity, with that intuition of the heart often more prompt and more enlightened than reasoning and reflected thought, shrank from all restriction and could not suffer, according to the expression ofSt. Augustine, that there should be question of any sin whatsoever in connexion with Mary. Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, because the theologians, powerless to struggle against a blind sentiment, had themselves to follow the movement, but because their perceptions, quickened by the faithful and by their own instinct of faith, grew more considerate of the sentiment of the faithful and eventually examined the new opinion more closely in order to make sure that, far from contradicting any dogma, it harmonized wonderfully with other revealed truths and corresponded as a whole to the analogy of faith and rational fitness. Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed. Thus to implicit faith in a revealed truth succeeded, after long discussions, explicit faith in the same truth thenceforth shining in the sight of all. There have been no new data, but there has been under the impulse of grace and sentiment and the effort of theology a more distinct and clear insight into what the ancient data contained. When the Church defined the Immaculate Conception it defined what was actually in the explicit faith of the faithful what had always been implicitly in that faith. The same is true of all similar cases, save for accidental differences of circumstances. In recognizing a new truth the Church thereby recognizes that it already possessed that truth."
A very Catholic-biased account, but it doesn't get around the fact that what was once not taught, is taught now. The Magisterium has been led by the faithful to understand what was not understood at the time of the Apostles.
Sacred tradition is NOT what was passed down, but what has been developed over the years. And as John put it: "Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."
Sounds to me like I shouldn't even say "Hello" to someone on the Magisterium!
Which Magisterium??
The official Catholic one or the ersatz "one man" variety of which there are legion?
Everyone has a "Magisterium". If you dispense with the Catholic one, you erect your own personal version.
Careful.
The question of whether this was understood at the time of the Apostles is a little different from whether or not it was dogmatically defined at that time. The writings of the early fathers were in fact taken into account when this dogma was defined.
Defining, explaining and deepening the faith is not inconsistent with preserving the deposit of faith. That is why there have been so called "Doctors of the Church" down through the centuries; Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius, Aquinas etc. They invented nothing new but their theological insights helped to deepen the faith and explain it in new and unique ways.
The faith is a living thing and insights can and do emerge over time.
So you say, I believe that's obviously false. Apostolic succession is passing down much more than clothes and manners and habits and methods. Spiritual knowledge cannot be reduced to these or - to words on a page.
then pretending to read scripture while forcing on it meanings
The history of the Church is that men can derive all sorts of heresy from plain reading - heretical theology argued from scripture - and continues to do so today. Orthodoxy is supported by scripture, but scripture alone fails to maintain Orthodoxy.
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.