Posted on 09/11/2012 7:21:36 PM PDT by Salvation
In sections 131-133 of the Catechism we find this: Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."...Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology...The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. I do not think it could be any clearer than this. The Church is telling Catholics "Read your Bibles." You may have heard that Catholics were not allowed read the Bible in earlier centuries. That is a very complicated subject that many Evangelical pastors have turned into a simplistic slogan against Catholics. In the days when peasants were illiterate, peasant Catholics depended on clergy who could read, on the Scripture stories as depicted visually on stain glass windows and statues. I explore the history of Catholic Bible reading here. The message to Catholics of this generation, who are literate and able to read, unlike Christians in earlier centuries is "Read your Bibles." We thank our Evangelical friends for so enthusiastically getting into Scripture and helping turn the last century into an age of Bible literacy. The Processional March of each Mass is lead by a person holding the Cross and then a person holding the Bible up high in the air. What many Evangelicals don't know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it, and the Liturgy is pulled right out of Scripture (Mat 26:26-28, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:17). This layout of the Mass has continued for over a thousand years. If I follow Church advice and go to Mass everyday, I make a beautiful journey through the Bible. Perhaps by going to daily Mass we do not learn the chapter and verse numbers but it is still a wonderful exposure to Scripture. It is kind of like this. When I was a kid I did not know all the street numbers in my neighbourhood like the postman, but I knew where everybody was because I was exposed to them every day. I got to know them. By going to Mass we get a fantastic exposure to God's Word. Of course we have to study privately and/or in groups also and the Church instructs us to do that. The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. They were incredibly accurate. We have a modern discovery that is a testimony to how accurate the Monks were when they copied the Bible. The "Dead Sea Scrolls" were discovered in 1947 and they date back to 200 BC. They contain Old Testament books such as Isaiah. They predate some of the Monk's copies by 1500 years. Yet the hand copied Bibles created by monks are almost identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is remarkable given that the Monks were working from copies of copies. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed. The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with an NIV sticker on it. The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). A timeline of how the Bible came to us is here. Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association: "Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!" Even the word Bible is a Catholic word. Surprizingly, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible. It means books from the Greek word βυβλος-byblos meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We love the Bible. Honest! The Catholic position on Scripture has always been that it is without error on faith and morals and also on everything else. It is the word of God, word for word. The imperfect people who received inspiration to write it did not mess up when they put the pen to paper, even though they were fallible humans. Even with the rise of science Vatican I asserted it, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pious XII, and Vatican II all reasserted the complete inerrancy of Scripture. The box to the right shows the councils and popes' reaffirmation of this truth. Some modern "theologians" at Vatican II wanted to limit the inerrancy of Scripture to "faith and morals" allowing "errors" in Scripture on historical events, dates etc... but Pope Paul VI stood by the Church's consistent position. The line "for the sake of our salvation" probably meant that God gave us Scripture for the purpose of our salvation. It does not make sense to say that God would put exactly what he wanted in Scripture and create an error there. To assume that the inspired writers made mistakes is to put the Bible on the same level as every other inspired book, which clearly it is not. Scripture says: Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch...reading the prophet Isaiah...[Philip] asked "do you understand what you are reading?" He replied "How can I unless someone guides me?" and he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him (Acts 8:30-31) Philip, who was an apostle and a representative of Christ's Church, helped the Ethiopian eunuch interpret the Scripture. In the Old Testament we read: So the Levites read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8 - my emphasis) Catholics and Evangelicals agree that the Bible is the unerring word of God. Where we differ is where the burden of interpretation lies. Evangelicals follow Martin Luther’s feeling that an individual can interpret the Bible perfectly if they pray first. Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit guides our Bible reading and illuminates our understanding. I've had some amazing experiences with Scripture where the words just came alive for me. However, I'm not sure that every time someone picks up a Bible, prays, and starts reading, that they are surrounded by the Holy Spirit, even if they are sincere. For example, Martin Luther, after praying and reading the Bible, decided that the Book of James didn't belong in the Bible. To me this is a problem, because here is a guy prayerfully reading the Bible, who decided parts of it didn't belong there, yet he said the Bible was the unerring word of God. This seems kind of cyclical to me. In the preface to his Bible, Martin Luther said: "the St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw ... for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it." About the Book of Revelation, Luther said: "I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . there are many far better books for us to keep." So even for Martin Luther, Scripture alone was not enough, he acknowledged that there needed to be human authority governing it, he just thought that the authority should be him, rather than the Catholic Church. Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. They say, "the main things are the plain things." My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are forwarded by sincere honest Christians who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Surely God did not want people to have conflicting interpretations of Scripture, because that would be in conflict with the Bible itself which calls us to unity. (Jn 17:21) Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true. Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about. To me this is an unauthentic and superficial unity, not the deep unity that we are called to. Many have written to me and said "the only thing that is important is that we agree that Jesus is Lord." I totally agree that Jesus is Lord, but if that is all we needed to know then I wonder why He gave us 1500 pages of Scripture. He could have just showed up for a day and said "I'm Lord" and did a big miracle and split, but He didn't. He taught his apostles, who were the Church, for 3 years. His apostles wrote down his words and eventually it became what we now call the Bible. I think this was Jesus' wish. Many "Bible believing" denominations who say "Jesus is Lord" have now ruled that Gay Marriage and abortion are OK. This includes Lutherans, some Methodist churches, the United Church, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc. That is their interpretation of Scripture. I have a problem with that. I think Jesus understood the human mind's capacity to rationalize its own wishes even with the Bible in hand, and while saying "Jesus is Lord." I believe we need a higher authority than millions of diverse and conflicting Christians with Bibles in their hands. Catholics think that the final word on the interpretation of Scripture falls on the authority to which Jesus appointed. (Mathew 16:18-19). We have a Biblical example of the Church having a central interpreter in early times during the crisis of faith over circumcision. (Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3) This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation. That is probably the biggest division between Catholics and Evangelicals. So I thought I should explain it a bit and not leave it hanging, 'cause I can see how it seems blasphemous for a Catholic to say the Bible is not the "only" authority. Most certainly the Bible is infallible. However, Catholics believe that the Bible itself teaches us that the Church came before the Bible. Jesus did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church write down the Gospels. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. A history of the Bible is here. If Jesus inspired members of the Church to infallibly write the Bible and later infallibly decide on what writings to include in the Bible, I think He can inspire the Church to make right interpretation of Scripture on matters that are critical to our salvation. The following passage is often used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) "...the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16) The passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need? Most certainly not. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue. Catholics believe that the "Bible alone" theory is not what the Bible teaches. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18) Scripture says "And the Word became Flesh" (Jn1:1) It doesn't say "and the Word became paper." God became Flesh, He instituted and commissioned his Church. Later He inspired members of his Church to write, then He inspired members of the Church to discern which books to include in the Bible, and He inspired his Church to interpret it. This is what Catholics believe, and that is what all Christians believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Catholics believe Jesus ordained Peter and the Apostles to be the teaching authority over God’s Word to us. We believe that God gave Peter a special Grace to teach infallibly. Jesus said "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:18). We believe that Jesus extends this grace through Peter's successors to the present day Pope. We call this special grace infallibility. We think it is a rallying point and a great source of unity that Jesus summons us to in Scripture. More Christians are in unity with Rome in this way than all the other denominations combined. The Catholic Church does not claim to fully understand all Scripture. There are many mysteries within its pages that still are not fully understood. What the Church is saying is that whatever has been revealed to it and set out in Dogma is true. There are many areas of Scripture that are still mysteries, and therefore not defined as Dogma. There is much for the Church to learn. We believe God is not finished with us. That is why we say that the Catholic Church is on a pilgrimage. (more about that below) How is it possible for one organization to be confident in its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture? Perhaps the question should be "Can God make it possible for one organization to have the power of discernment?" Could God do this if He wanted to? I believe every Christian would agree that He can do anything. The Church believes Jesus wanted to do this, He promised it, and He delivered. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13). Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having a thousand variations of Catholicism based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. If this happened, it would not be consistent with Jesus' wish for Unity. (Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5). A Catholic friend Gary Hoge says that he discovered that in most cases where Catholics and Protestants disagree over biblical interpretation, it was, ironically, the Catholics who interpreted the Bible literally, where we Protestants gave it a figurative, allegorical interpretation. For instance: ...It seemed to me that Catholic theology usually allowed the Bible to simply mean what it says, without the complicated exegesis and linguistic gyrations that were sometimes necessary to make it support my beliefs. (From Gary Hoge) Catholics do believe what the Bible says. I don't think the Church is into squashing the individual. In fact it has great respect for the individual. Most of our Saints were simple individuals not in positions of power. Yet they have become great examples to the whole Church. The Church has great respect for these individuals who have said "yes" to the Lord. The Church learns from these individuals and has incorporated their interpretations of Scripture into doctrine. The Church relies on gifted individuals. The Church feels that God has anointed some individuals such as Thomas Aquinas with understanding. The Church goes into a process of prayer and discernment on the validity of interpretations by individuals and makes doctrine from some of the interpretations that emerge out of this official discernment. The Church is totally cool with private interpretation of Scripture. In fact many of our doctrines were defined through the giftings of people like Thomas Aquinas and Jerome who had private revelations about the interpretation of Scripture. These insights went through a process of discernment, prayer and examination by the Church. Once accepted, they eventually helped mold our understanding of what God was saying to the Church through his Holy Word. The Church is also cool with guys like you and me having private revelation, if it does not conflict with sound doctrine. If we have a new insight into an area, it can be discerned, prayed over and reviewed the same way as it was for Thomas Aquinas and others who helped mold the Church's understanding of Scripture. We have a recent example of this. Thérèse de Lisieux was a young nun who died at 24 years old. She was a "nobody" in the Church - just a little nun in a far away Carmelite convent. The Church looked at her writings and they were floored! They made her a doctor of the Church and she has influenced modern thought about the Bible in a major way. My evangelical friends will be glad to know that her greatest contribution was her total abandonment and confidence in Jesus. She had a personal relationship to Him. He was her personal Saviour. Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. I would say that that is pretty well the entire job of an Evangelical preacher, to help people interpret Scripture and put it into practice in their lives. There are presently dozens of conflicting interpretations of Bible passages by different Evangelical denominations and cell groups. (i.e., the Rapture) Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are claimed to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Truth is not relative then there is only one truth. Catholics think its better that it is interpreted by the authority to which Jesus gave the authority. (Mathew 16:18-19). The Catholic Church doesn't claim that it understands everything about Scripture. Rather, it says that what has been revealed and defined as Dogma is true. The Church is on a pilgrimage of faith and its understanding of the mystery of God is evolving. What many Evangelicals do not know is that no mainstream Evangelical denomination agrees with the writings of the early reformers on some fundamental issues; for instance, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the role of the Eucharist, contraception, etc... Martin Luther's writings (even after the reform) are closer to Catholicism than they are to modern ECLA Lutherans. I think this clearly shows that the Evangelical understanding of Scripture has "evolved." Richard John Neuhaus describes the Catholic Church's Pilgrimage of Faith this way. . . . the Catholic Church, knowing that theological formulations fall short of expressing the fullness of truth, trusts the continuing guidance of the Spirit in a course of doctrinal development toward the ever more adequate articulation of God's Word relative to the questions posed by the time . . .(3) Article 66-67 of the Catechism says: "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. ...Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations". Perhaps the best way to throw light upon the Catholic approach is to look a dilemma in the Protestant world in the last century. Many slave owners used Scripture to justify the slave trade. They had many Bible quotes to back it up. Some would say that people who were against slavery were against the Bible and therefore against God. However, good Christians had a revelation about the interpretation of Scripture. Careful and prayerful examination of these scriptural passages revealed that the abolition of slavery would in no way contradict Scripture. Although the Bible had not changed, its meaning on this matter sharpened. Scriptural understanding matured on this matter. After much pain, God's will on the interpretation of Scripture about slavery won out. Praise God. "Amazing Grace." (The Vatican's interpretation of Scripture always was against slavery.) Right up until the 1500's Christians including the reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and the Catholic church thought the planet earth couldn't move around the sun. They cited Scripture passages stating that the world was "immovable" therefore they felt it could not turn as Copernicus theorized. (i.e., 1 Chron 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and Ps 104:5) Currently thousands of denominations are interpreting Scripture differently from each other, even though Scripture warns against this. (2 Peter 1:20) Each group is saying they have the correct interpretation. To me this is a perfect example of the "many truths" problem that is found in relativism. Catholics feel that God is not finished with humanity and that He is constantly revealing things about his Holy Word to us. The Church is on a "Pilgrimage" of faith and understanding. It is maturing and evolving. I don't think the Bible is a dusty archaic book that is frozen in time. It is the living word of God. Not many of us understand Hebrew and Greek of 2000 years ago which is considerably different from today’s Hebrew and Greek. Each translation of the Bible is interpreted based on many historical factors such language usage of the time etc. The Evangelical who reads the Bible in English, is already reading someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. They trust someone else’s judgment. The minute we walk into Church and hear a pastor's sermon we are influenced on Bible interpretation. Every Evangelical who goes to a Bible study is being influenced by someone else's interpretation of Scripture. Every student in an Evangelical Bible College is being influenced. We must admit that we are all affected by many different influences when interpreting Scripture. And in a way, these Evangelical sources act as teaching authorities, the way the Vatican does for Catholics. One of my Evangelical friends used to open up the New International Bible Commentary (an authority) in order to get the "right" interpretation. This does not appear to me to be consistent with his Sola Scriptural beliefs? It seems that commentaries, concourses and even Bible studies are quite a Catholic idea in that they represent an "authoritative correct" interpretation of Scripture. Any Evangelical student in Bible college has accepted an "authoritative" interpretation of Scripture. But many of these organizations are in conflict with each other on the interpretation of Scripture even though their leaders are prayerful, brilliant, faithful and humble people. It still doesn't solve the unity problem. Who's right - they both prayerfully read their Bibles? Jesus wanted all Christians to be unified in their understanding of Scripture. We think the inspired authority explanation is more Biblical and offers a greater chance at Christian unity. If I walk into any Evangelical book store I will find abundant commentaries on the Bible. Every Evangelical seminary has hundreds of books that are studies to support the students on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Every denomination has statements about how it interprets Scripture. The Catechism is a synopsis of the Catholic faith. Its primary source is Scripture. Its other sources are the history and writings of the very first Christians (which we call the Church Fathers), the liturgy, and the Church's teaching authority which is called the Magisterium. If you want to know what the Church teaches about anything from abortion to the Trinity, you will find it in the Catechism. The Catechism in no way replaces Scripture. It is dependent on Scripture.Are Catholics into the Bible?
In this Article
What does the Catholic Church teach about Bible access and reading?
The Catholic Mass is totally Bible centred
The Catholic Church protected the Bible
Does the Catholic Church agree that the Bible is the unerring Word of God?
The Church's official position on the complete inerrancy of the Bible
Why do we sometimes need help interpreting Scripture?
Paul and Barnabus consulted the central authority of the Church on the interpretation of Scripture
Isn't the Bible alone the only Authority? (sola Scriptura)
Why does the Catholic Church think that its interpretation of Scripture is right?
Catholics take the Bible at its Word
Is Church authority squashing the individual's private interpretation of Scripture?
What about the Catholic Church's evolving understanding, isn't that relativism?
Evangelicals had an "evolving understanding" of Scripture regarding slavery
Evangelicals often trust an "authority's" interpretation of Scripture rather than their own personal interpretation
Why do Catholics refer to the Catechism? Why don't Catholics just use the Bible?
Obviously you are correct. My real point is that the men who write these commentaries may be excellent scholars, filled with the Holy Spirit, etc. They are still men like us, and like us they make mistakes. We are responsible for using our own judgment and intelligence. Naturally, we can’t all be biblical scholars.
That said, one test that I use is that the more a commentator tries to get away from the plain text of the Scriptures, especially on the moral issues, the less I tend to trust him on more esoteric measures, such as who gets into heaven or qualifies as a Christian, eschatology, and how our government should function.
Call me an ignorant bigot, but that’s the way i see it.
You wrote:
“Have you ever been in a worship service with expository preaching?”
Far less scripture is covered in the average Protestant “worship service with expository preaching” than in the average daily Mass. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Bible is the word of God. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. Sacraments give us grace. We find God in one or the other, not is just one.
Do you know of some Bible courses that are not presented by Hahn or Cavins?
Those doctrinal formulations slightly predate Scott Hahn.
Bible-deniers tend to be very, very, very familiar with the Biblical text (often more familiar than "Bible believers"). But being "into" the Bible doesn't mean believing it.
The Documentary Hypothesis? You’re not going to see too many elderly hippys posting to this thread, ZC.
The problem isn't "elderly hippys" on Free Republic. The problem is that all the mainstream "conservative" Catholic apologeticists (think "Catholic Answers") subscribe to it, and the late date for Daniel, and the idea that the events in Genesis 1-11 never happened. That's just the way it is. Any Catholic who doesn't believe these things is an oddball. And I should know, because I was one for six years.
EWTN? Mitchell Pacwa? Not subscribe to the documentary hypothesis?
Really?
Jeff Cavins has an excellent Bible study series — video — so everyone in the parish can be doing the same Bible study.
I’m thinking it’s called “The Great Adventure” Bible study.
Someone posted online that they started out at their church with only one Bible study group and now have seven. Don’t remember who it was, though.
Look on Hahn’s website. You should find it.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/
Now I see you said “not” in your request.
Come and See series is a good one.
Ignatius also has a very detailed Bible study.
I have taught Little Rock — but it is mostly concerned with history. Needs augmenting.
you mean the Apostles?
SK (Baptist) pastor arrested on child rape chargesPastor had sex with teens to cure their homosexuality
Riverside Pastor Now Faces 91 Sex-Related Charges
San Jose pastor accused of molesting boy
Pastor admits molesting 2 girls
Pastor held for sexually exploiting minor girls
Where is the Outrage? (evangelical pedophiles)
Pastor Admits Guilt in Sexual Abuse Cases on Consecutive Days
Pastor in Puyallup charged with child molesting
Pastors: Homosexuality not a sin (100 ordained Christian ministers have signed the proclamation)
Pastor arrested on child molestation charges
Teen testifies of abuse by pastor
Humboldt pastor pleads guilty to sex abuse
Charlotte Presbytery, too, ends gay ban
Clergy Sex Abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention
Kingston, PA, youth minister accused of molesting teens
Pastor Arrested For Child Molestation (DeLand, FL)
Arizona pastor arrested, accused of molesting boys in 3 states
Fugitive pastor wanted on child sex charges found (raw video link) (Gaston Co NC)
Sacramento pastor Molesting Teen
Pastor settles with victim out of court
Kelso Pastor Charged With Multiple Rapes In Portland, OR
Delray pastor gets no jail time for molestation
pastor pleads guilty to molesting boy, attempt on brother
pastor gets 4 year sentence for molesting teens
Jersey Pastor Forced Teens to Make Sex Tape at Motel,
Coral springs youth pastor arrested for 10 counts of lewd and lascivious molestation
Ada preacher charged with molesting young boys
New Life Christian Center vows to support accused pastor (accused of sex with 13 y/o)
Pastor Convicted Of Sex Assault Dies In Prison (Dogwood City, TX)
Former Gladewater, TX, pastor pleads guilty in sexual assault of a child trial
Pastor arrested on charges of solicitation (High Point, NC)
pastor faces hearing on sex charges
Child molesting case resurfaces, could cost First Baptist Church of Hesperia millions
Former Prestonwood, TX, pastor remains jailed, faces online solicitation charges
First Baptist Church deacon Stephen Edmonds pleaded guilty to molesting three boy
Watertown, SD, Pastor Arrested, Charged With Sex Crimes
pastor pleads to 9 counts of voyeurism
Suits allege clergy misconduct, Two Baptist ministers apologize after women bring forth accusations
Bramps: I simply would've expected the Pope to follow the bible and kindly show Giuliani the door prior to receiving the Eucharist. Could I seriously ask you to explain why you think he did not do this?
Firstly, does it say in the Bible that Giuliani should be shown the door prior to receiving the Eucharist?
Secondly, what's the use of him receiving the Eucharist after he's been shown the door?
Thirdly and to the point -- what makes you think the Pope even recognizes some mayor of some city far away? -- in a crowd at mass do you think the Pope knows who Guiliani is? Just another face in the crowd.
Why should the Pope know who Guiliani is and what he looks like? Do YOU know what the mayor of say Manchester looks like?
What about the hordes of non-Catholics who voted for Obama? Catholics even those in name only are just 26% of the electorate, so with a split the non-Catholics are the ones who got Obama in.
I'm fairly certain that the number of Obama voters at my church will be 0 -- in a church of 1 you can be certain of the number of voters
of course, this is Christianity we are talking about, Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, lutherans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc) -- now go read the Koran, isn't it ramadan time still?
how many times do they read the Hadiths and the suras at r place?
to which I ask --> interesting - so do you read the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek texts?
Or do you read in Shakespearean 17th century English or current Modern English?
You do know that the books of the Bible were not written in standard American in the 1st century, right?
Syrian Christians in the 2nd century rejected it, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it," and is not known of in the ancient church of the Georgians.
It depends on which “Protestant” — there are too many of them, some like the Unitarians etc. don’t read the Bible at all, others like the Christian scientists read the Bible in minutae.
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.