Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
You are being overly simplistic.
Cronos wrote:
“The problem is escalation”
I will disagree with you slightly. The problem is sin and the general corruption it has worked in all of us. One symptom of this, our true problem, is when we attempt to discuss these very important things and we as Christians feel anger when we think that God has been demeaned, defamed or blasphemed. Righteous anger in us who are fallen is easily transformed into self-righteous anger and vengeance. When this happens the argument quickly degenerates, the wrong done by one is returned by the other (usually escalated), and the whole discussion becomes unprofitable if not even harmful for all.
Ephesians 4:17-32 is a good primer on how the Christian should approach the discussion of the holy things of God. It will encourage us on the one hand as we try to do what is right, and discourage us on the other when we see how badly we have strayed from the way of Christ.
As you rightly concede - and I with you - we so often fail to do as we should. And it seems so hard to apologize. Yet, I think, one can do so without having to concede a point wherein one has done wrong in defended what one sees to be right. There isn’t much civility and apologizing around here. More would be better; and then the discussion might actually become more profitable.
And the mods would be happier as well.
Catholics don’t believe the Pope is divinely inspired. Just that when defines a doctrine that is already universally held the issue can’t be revisited.
Protestants seem to believe in their own infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture.
First, the Wycliffe Bible was a number of versions all attempting to translate the Vulgate into Middle English, not so as to provide access to the Scripture to the uneducated but as a platform to rationalize his differences with the Vatican.
To suggest that there was a literate audience for any English writings in the 14th century is a stretch. Those that were literate were educated in Latin and French (because of their Norman roots). Further to suggest that there was a single common English vernacular across England is preposterous. As different as the accents of the various regions of England are today in the 14th century they were incomprehensible. Peasant classes spoke languages that were still largely Anglo-Saxon, Fresian, Norse, or Celtic in vocabulary and grammar.
That is the trouble with the gospel. It's too simple.
I don't believe I said that the Pope is divinely inspired. Catholics believe that his decrees are infallible when coming from the seat of Peter. And since he issued this decree from the seat of Peter it must be infallible. I know...the logic is enough to make one dizzy. But I just explain it.
Protestants seem to believe in their own infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture.
If you say it enough this may come true but I doubt it. In fact, it would mean that there are 10,000, 40,000 or a million (by some accounts) different infallible Protestants all running around. I have yet to find one that believes they're infallible.
We Catholics believe that in very limited areas and conditions the pope can make infallible pronouncements. This has only been done twice in the history of the Church. Conversely, I have never met a Protestant that did not claim an "indwelling" ability to infallibly interpret Scripture, something they deny to the pope. We get to witness that everyday on these threads.
“First, the Wycliffe Bible was a number of versions all attempting to translate the Vulgate into Middle English...”
No. There was essentially one extensive revision of the initial attempt, with the first being overly literal.
“...not so as to provide access to the Scripture to the uneducated but as a platform to rationalize his differences with the Vatican.”
On the contrary. Every attempt was made by the Lollards to get the scripture into the hands of the common man. It was not an academic attempt to show the Vatican was wrong, but to persuade the masses by giving the masses the source material for Wycliffe’s beliefs.
Wycliffe and his followers believed that the more men knew of God’s Word, the less they would follow the Catholic Church. They believed the more men read, the more they would agree with Wycliffe.
And since the Catholic Church responded by trying to prevent the scriptures from being translated into the vernacular - see the 1408 Oxford Constitutions, pushed by the then-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury - it is hard to disagree.
The Catholic Church argued that scripture was too subtle for unlearned men to understand. One can agree or disagree, but it isn’t right to pretend that the Catholic Church WANTED commoners to read scripture.
“To suggest that there was a literate audience for any English writings in the 14th century is a stretch.”
Ah...then there must have been no market for the Wycliffe Bible, and it ceased existence because no one wanted it. But that is NOT the way it worked, is it?
“Further to suggest that there was a single common English vernacular across England is preposterous.”
I’ve suggested no such thing. It was a challenge that Tyndale also faced, until his translation proved so popular that it united the dialects into his common tongue - as Luther’s translation did for Germany.
But the problems with translation are not the point. The point was that the Lollards considered them a challenge to overcome, because it was important to them for commoners to read scripture, while the Catholic Church viewed them as an excuse to do nothing.
Remember - the unlearned Apostles of Jesus’ time knew their scriptures. The problem wasn’t that it was impossible. The problem was that it wasn’t tried - and it wasn’t tried because the Catholic Church wasn’t interested in scripture.
A survey taken of English priests around 1500 found 9 of 311 did not know there were 10 Commandments, 33 did not know were to find them, and 168 did not know them. 30 did not know that Jesus spoke the Lord’s Prayer.
The Lollards had some success, in spite of various local but severe persecutions. Had the Catholic Church taken the same approach, success would have been guaranteed. But the Catholic Church did not WANT commoners to read scripture.
“I have never met a Protestant that did not claim an “indwelling” ability to infallibly interpret Scripture”
Odd. I’ll bet both HarleyD & I strongly believe our interpretations of scripture are fallible. But we will be judged by God as individuals, and God will know if we wished to follow Him or not.
That is why we argue from scripture. We have no reason to think anyone cares for our beliefs, if they depart from what God’s Word has already said.
I can attribute most of your post to opinion, but some of it is preposterous. 30 priests not knowing the Lord's Prayer? Really, hen the Pater Noster is a part of the Latin Mass they said every day? Who actually ran that poll, MSNBC?
Please notice this passage in Romans 14:
” 1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
It says we will be accountable to God - as individuals.
But it also is notable for what it does NOT say...
It doesn’t say, “Ask Peter. He knows.” It doesn’t say, “I’m an Apostle, and I know.” It doesn’t even say, “Ask your Bishop.”
Instead, it assumes each man has to decide these issues for himself.
“22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
Notice again, there is no suggestion to write to Peter. Just act from faith. To do otherwise is sin.
And it is INDIVIDUAL.
The poll was taken in a rural area. Remember, England was the backwash of Catholicism, and rural priests were not educated like those in cities. I can try to find out more, but it will take time.
“I don’t believe I said that the Pope is divinely inspired. Catholics believe that his decrees are infallible when coming from the seat of Peter. And since he issued this decree from the seat of Peter it must be infallible. I know...the logic is enough to make one dizzy. But I just explain it.”
Catholics don’t believe the Pope’s every utterance is infallible.
As Matthew 16:19 says, “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Baptists and Catholics don’t share the same faith when it comes to Baptism.
Found this:
“The main complaint against the lower clergy was their ignorance and inability to do their job properly. The sacraments would be administered to the poor with a chanted rigmarole that must have increased ideas about the Mass being magic and so heightened the superstition of the uneducated; the prayers would be mumbled by a man who had forgotten a Latin he never understood, and the poor might never have received any coherent or intelligent instruction in their faith. The lower clergy’s inadequate education and general unsuitability were ridiculed by leading laymen like Thomas More and Erasmus, while the privileges they could nevertheless claim earned the resentment and hatred of an increasing number of the population.”
http://www.structuralcommunication.org/sc/tudorpeace/sc_tudorpeace_unit4.html
I also found reference to the Council of Trent setting up seminaries to educate monks and priests...so it must have been a problem, although everything I’ve seen indicates it was at its worst in England.
I guess you cannot count very well. A day was from evening one day until evening the next day. So Jesus was buried Wednesday evening. So:
Wednesday evening to Thursday evening = first day
Thursday evening to Friday evening = second day
Friday evening to Saturday evening = third day
The women went to the tomb "as it was beginning to dawn on the first day of the week" (Sunday) and Jesus was not there, he had already risen. The guards had already hit the road in fear for their lives. Jesus rose on the evening of the Sabbath day. Three days and three nights, just as he said.
As to the Eucharist and what Jesus said about it, I believe in exactly what he DID say. The bread symbolized his body which would be broken for us, and was. The cup of wine symbolized his blood which would be shed for us, and it was. When we accept Christ, receive him as our Savior, we are consuming him as our "bread of life" and his blood, we accept as the payment in full for our sins. You don't need a "special" prayer to change those elements into physical flesh and blood - regardless of those special "miracles" that claim real human heart tissue was found - because Jesus even said he was speaking "spiritually" because "flesh" profits nothing. His words are "spirit" and "life". When you receive your Eucharist "host" you MUST imagine it is spiritually changed because NOBODY would swallow human flesh and blood. It IS a spiritual presence and, don't have a conniption fit on me, that was EXACTLY what the disciples at the Last Supper understood.
One more thing, why do you always interject this argument into nearly every thread you post to? What, pray tell, does this have to do with Luther?
i am always amazed of how easily some are swayed by the latest fad in theology.
Christians have always believed Jesus rose on the first day of the week, this is why we worship on Sunday and not Saturday.
i have to laugh, you say i can’t count very well ( don’t tell the state of NJ, they issued me a license to practice as a CPA! )but then you conclude Jesus rose on saturday, the same day i stated you must conclude in the post!
even if you discount Mark 16:9 as not Scripture, if Mark did not pen this verse someone did late 1st century when many believers who personally spoke to the Apostles were still alive. all agree, Jesus rose on Sunday!
but Paul tells us definitively what day Jesus rose.
let’s turn to 1 Corinthians 15:20
“but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the FIRST FRUITS of those who have fallen asleep”
again in verse 23 we read “Christ THE FIRST FRUITS”
now, you may not be familiar with the Jewish Feast of First Fruits, but if you look it up, it is always celebrated the day AFTER the Sabbath, i.e. SUNDAY.
the feast signifies the start of the harvest, which is a perfect figure for Jesus starting to begin the harvest of souls after paying the penalty for sin and opening the gates of heaven.
once someone realizes how days were counted back then, Jesus statement about the sign of Jonah is absolutely consistent with dying on Friday and rising on Sunday.
this Wednesday nonsense is just another attack on the Church and it’s teaching authority.
why do i always bring up the Eucharist? because it is a central tenant of Christianity, so much so, that Jesus personally taught the Apostle Paul it’s meaning. it is also the hallmark of the Christian Church, central to the worship of the One true God from the Apostles to today.
Luther actually believed in the Real Presence, so kudos to him.
now, i am waiting for a repsonse to my post yesterday about the canon of Scripture and who can infallibly set the canon?
how can someone claim “sola scriptura” and then not defend how the “scriptura” can be believed to be the word of GOd and how do we KNOW we have the proper “scriptura”?
That has always been an issue in every church and every period.
Well, that's strange. Which two pronouncements do you believe is without error and are you prepare to say that every other doctrine of the Catholic Church (e.g. Mary, purgatory, the Eucharist, etc.) could be in error?
I suspect I know the answer to that question-except which two pronouncements are without error. One would have to be that the Pope is infallible. What the second one is I suppose is a mystery.
see post #377, i am sorry i forgot to ping you.
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.