Posted on 11/28/2014 2:33:31 PM PST by NYer
It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.
“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.
“No, I don’t think so.”
A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.
I started crying.
I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.
Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.
But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”
I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.
But let’s rewind back a few years.
I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.
It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”
Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.
So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.
David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.
The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.
During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.
For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.
I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.
I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.
Johnny can’t come home...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3230630/posts
We have another thread going for THIS question.
Please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and the veneration of her. Why do you still have Jesus breaking the law of eating blood?
Once again very well said. Thank you.
You say here;
Really?
Yet previously you had said --- Best translation as applied to where --- precisely?
Was not the issue here as for usage of the Greek term ἄνωθεν as that was used in John 3:3 and 3:7?
Yet leaving that aside for a brief moment while concentrating on ἀναγεννάω as found in 1 Peter 1, Mounce (whom himself HAS studied Greek at the graduate level, rather than just pretends to, or claims to have) notes;
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: cv-1d(1a)
Gloss:
to give new birth, cause to be born again; used in the sense of spiritual rebirth, similar to being born again/from above (see {540} + {1164})
Definition:
to beget, or bring forth again; to regenerate, 1 Pet. 1:3, 23*
Notice he says similar to being born again/born from above with clues as for possible slight & subtle shading of difference possibly well hinted towards in that which follow his supplied "Definition:".
Setting that passage aside, turning now back to the usages of ἄνωθεν anothen in John 3:3,
in the now well-aged Latin translation, what does
Bueller, anyone..?
Jerome seemed to think it best to in John 3 use born again rather than more directly something more along lines of born from above, as far as the word choices he himself made...at that precise passage inclusive there also repeating the same at verse 3:7.
As an aid to others here, going to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denuo and clicking upon the tiny textual note [quotations ▼] (underlined there as a 'link') opens up the following notation;
Non mireris quia dixi tibi oportet vos nasci denuo.[2]
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'[3]
Is it all Jerome's fault that the Christian world/biblical texts oft read "born again" rather than "born from above"?
That could hardly be so, for even as Jerome did strive towards literal accuracy, it comes across also when investigating ancillary information in regards to that man's works of translation that he did not necessarily work in a theological vacuum, as so did often convey historic sense of the Church, as that was known of in his own era.
By which I mean -- it was apparently widely accepted to understand ἄνωθεν (transliterated into modern as anothen) in John 3 to mean again or anew, perhaps somewhat similar to how a band or small orchestra director of Borch-belt musicians of the early to middling parts of the last century might say to the assembled players while practicing for an up-coming gig -- "take it from the top!", ie, in other words, start this musical piece all over, again. But I digress ;^')
Are you arguing that ἄνωθεν should be translated woodenly, singularly favoring only one of it's meanings, in all instances?
Let us now look (again, no pun intended?) at the other exceptions found within NT texts, wherein is ἄνωθεν anothen
Galatians 4:9
That last portion above, borrowed from Mounce (and Co., for he does not work alone, I take it) https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/anothen.
From Thayers, as found here at biblehub, in conjunction with entry from Strong's, at note C;
c. anew, over again, indicating repetition (a use somewhat rare, but wrongly denied by many (Meyer among them; cf. his commentary on John and Galatians as below)): John 3:3, 7 ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι, where others explain it from above, i. e. from heaven. But, according to this explanation, Nicodemus ought to have wondered how it was possible for anyone to be born from heaven; but this he did not say; (cf. Westcott, Commentary on John, p. 63). Of the repetition of physical birth, we read in Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 1, 13 (14), p. 18 (i., p. 26, Reiff edition) (ἀνδρί) ἔτι τῷ ἔχοντι ἐγκυον γυναῖκα σημαίνει παῖδα αὐτῷ γεννήσεσθαι ὅμοιον κατά πάντα. οὕτω γάρ ἄνωθεν αὐτός δοξειε γέννασθαι; cf. Josephus, Antiquities 1, 18, 3 φιλίαν ἄνωθεν ποιεῖσθαι, where a little before stands πρότερα φιλία; add, Martyr. Polycarp, 1, 1 [ET]; (also Socrates in Stobaeus, flor. cxxiv. 41, iv. 135, Meineke edition (iii. 438, Gaisf. edition); Harpocration, Lex., see under the words, ἀναδικάσασθαι, ἀναθέσθαι, ἀναποδιζομενα, ἀνασυνταξις; Canon. apost. 46 (others 39, Coteler. patr. apost. works, i. 444); Pseudo-Basil, de bapt. 1, 2, 7 (iii. 1537); Origen in Joann. t. xx. c. 12 (works, iv. 322 c. DelaRue). See Abbot, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, etc. (Boston 1880), p. 34f). πάλιν ἄνωθεν, (on this combination of synonymous words cf. Kühner, § 534, 1; (Jelf, § 777, 1); Grimm on Sap. xix. 5 (6)): Galatians 4:9 (again, since ye were in bondage once before).
Notice that Thayer makes mention;
which possible weakness could be that it be theologically influenced, yet he goes on to provide, fwiw, additional notations in the above for where usages of again/anew (for anothen) can possibly be found (elsewhere, rather than NT Scripture) in corpus of [Greek] literature.
You mean Jerome? You know, the guy who's Latin translation of the Scriptures is the only official Bible of the RCC (according to *some* Roman Catholic freepers).
Himself and more than a few other highly educated individuals looked upon the "seven books" which you just alluded to, not as Scripture or equal to that, but instead viewed those as ecclesiastical writings not to be confused with, or taken entirely as holy writ, as his prologues and introductory notes make plain.
I am certain that you have been shown that previously, on this very forum, although exactly what specious Romanist nonsense you may or may not have brought in futile effort to make it all go away (to deny the underlying truths which can be found within Jerome's prologues) I do not at this time remember.
Or do you truly not know what that man wrote -- also in more than one place, at more than one juncture, concerning those 'seven books'???
It matters not that in his own writings otherwise, he also quoted from or lifted passages from those writings when emphasizing this or that point --- as long as he did so without being fully reliant upon those 'seven books' as you have termed them, for establishment of doctrines, which latter thing he did (more than once) warn against doing.
So please, I do ask that yourself and others leave the dueterocanon (second? secondary?) aside, whilst otherwise engaged in bashing persons around here upside the head with communion loaves wafers, gently(?) threatening them with down-elevator Hell itself, if they do not subscribe to your own views regarding what the Anglicans term Holy communion, and the Church of Rome calls Eucharist.
Question;
When Anglican congregations are swallowed up whole and entire (title to buildings and properties, included, even required to be included, in order for those Anglicans be allowed to convert to the Roman church, en masse) and are also told more or less;
are any of the oh, so slight, possible changes to the liturgy of the Mass forced upon them by the Church of Rome, needful in order to make their (Anglican) Mass effectual?
Or was the high-Church Anglican style (not to be confused with low-church Anglican mass & practice, perhaps) sufficiently effectual in powers of consecration shall we say, to -- in effect -- make the bread and the wine into being or becoming the body and blood of Christ?
YES, or NO.
It simply must be one way or another.
It must be answered, yes, or no.
Has the Anglican mass, as those congregations have for long centuries now practiced, been technically VALID (albeit possibly illicit from Roman Catholic point of view) all along,
OR
will those Anglicans congregations whom have converted to Roman Catholicism en masse, now be celebrating and enjoying the actual body of Christ for the very first time -- once they have a priest from the Church of Rome presiding over them and invoking the nearly precise & same words of consecration as did the Anglicans priests, before?
Do the Anglicans (and/or did those whom have now converted) have a valid Mass -- Yes, or No.
Remember too, as towards this question --- I did just supply reminder of an 'out' for the Romanist, in mentioning difference between there being only question of valid/invalid, and there being possibility for distinction for the difference being more one of that between licit/illicit, but still valid, albeit from official RCC perspective illicit, but yet still valid -- if you can excuse me here for belaboring the point. I did desire to make it be clear...
Pick one, and only one, (valid, or not) although to find out what "official" Roman Catholic Church view on this could be, a person would need to go ask a priest(?) or possibly a Bishop --- woops, maybe a Cardinal --- but ruh-roh, i sense a disturbance in the force --- for when we get up to level of Cardinal, the lots-of-talk double-talking which studiously avoids ever nailing anything potentially controversial down precisely (like actually answering this particular question!) is a wonder to behold,
for it does and will leave a person still wondering!
Again, has the Anglican Mass not been previously (officially, according to the RCC) effectual, as in sufficient in powers of consecration to "effect" the transubstantiation (of the bread and the wine)?
If that has been the real and actual view of the RCC all along, in regards to Anglican Mass -- then they should come right out and say so, openly, for they HAVE led those particular Anglican souls whom have converted to have believed differently, as in those Anglicans believing that the RCC had accepted them as true brethren, having had in their own Anglican experience enjoyed a valid Mass, etc., with those souls voting to convert (and turn over their church buildings and associated properties to the Roman Catholic Church, while they were at it) doing so not for reasons they themselves had viewed their own Mass as insufficient or deficient, but doing so (converting) for reasons of being discomforted by other Anglican Church considerations -- and who could blame them?
I would run as far away from the Archbishop of Canterbury (the last two of them, anyway) as I could get, myself. But not for reason that the Anglican Mass was not a valid communion with Him, in the eyes of the Creator of Heaven and earth...
For my own, "low church" and near-entirely receptionist views towards the Lord's Supper (as many refer to that), I cannot but recall that this one which we know of as Jesus in English parlance, this Messiah of Israel, did include reminding those whom He was speaking with in John 6 -- that it was not Moses whom provided to the children of Israel the manna, when that nation was yet in the wilderness.
Why now should any NOT stand far back from anyone 'standing upon' claim for themselves, or even their "Church", by powers of their own authority (regardless if they claim this authority itself having been given to them by God) to do that which Moses himself, as Christ did make a point of reminding us (in John 6), could not and did NOT do?
The Orthodox generally do not share views towards Eucharist identical to those of the Church of Rome, either. It does fairly well lean towards receptionist view, albeit one that still does highly value if not require (if at all possible) that this be done in communion with others, and fairly rigidly in wording and in word order -- and -- as close to original as they can agree upon among themselves is the traditional practice.
I will say here also that among Anglicans there were men such as John Jewel whom was quite kindly towards what was termed congregationalist in his own day (those persons holding view that Holy communion/Lord's Supper need not necessarily be presided over by organized State Church "authorities" or "priesthood") while a man whom was something of a protege' of Jewel, Richard Hooker, wrote rather extensively as towards what he termed 'polity', which considerations for included call and needfulness for there to be sober and deliberate order in the Church, which writings are much of the continuation of High Church view, which itself greatly mirrors Roman Catholic attitude & practice. So I ask you -- how well have you investigated those differences? I myself have searched high and low -- and in my own direct experience found Him first among the low and lowly...and I do mean this in regards to what early "Protestants" termed "Real Presence", themselves understanding that in the theoretical through both Luther (and his discussion of Christ being consubstantial with the bread and wine) and Calvin writing of there being a real and actual pneumatic, or spiritual "presence".
Try investigating this subject matter even yet again among those not Roman Catholic (if you already have) and do so while focusing strongly upon whichever difference of theological approach can be found in the most ancient of Anaphora which you may be able to find, comparing those also, all along the way with how Luther, Calvin, and hosts of others wrote or spoke of the Lord's Supper, without becoming entirely hung up upon what may possibly be perceived as Zwiglian views -- yet if you go there -- go all the way to that source most directly, instead of taking other's words for what Zwigli allegedly believed and/or was focusing upon.
Notice too, that much as many Orthodox still practice to this day -- they partake of this while all whom can do so are standing on their feet, just as they were also all standing when they all participated in the epiclesis (the invitation by all, directed towards the Lord, for His Spirit to inhabit/become the bread & the wine) which betrays to this very day -- sense of "priesthood of believers", rather than or opposed to there being a singular and sacerdotal class of individuals which themselves "confect" this mystery.
Standing upright, upon their own two legs and feet (if they have those) rather than or compared to the Medieval Romish practice of having everyone kneel before sacerdotalists and popping the bread into the people's mouths like they were infants, rather than have the bread handed to them, as Christ did so with own disciples.
The church at Antioch was founded after the church of Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch after Jews fleeing to Jewish communities outside the land of Israel due to the severe persecutions. Barnabas brought Saul, the Apostle to the Gentiles to Antioch where they founded the church. The church at Antioch was apostolic and became the launching point to bring the Gospel to many other Gentiles. They founded apostolic churches and ordained the elders to care for the sheep, including at Antioch. The church at Antioch was and remains a Catholic/Orthodox Church, belonging to the holy catholic apostolic church. The church at Antioch appealed to the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem , appointing a delegation led by the Apostle Saul/Paul and Barnabas to get a ruling in the question of whether Gentiles who were granted repentance unto life and were baptized were also required to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas had said no but apparently that was no definitive enough for Antioch and so it went to all the Apostles who exercised the power of binding and loosing.
I note you are judging the Jewish Apostles, and by implication, Jewish brethren/elders who were eligible to be Apostles, having accompanied Yeshua from the baptism of a John unto his ascension, being eyewitnesses of his resurrection and all his teaching. I note your exception for Nathaniel and out of season Saul. I an searching the scriptures for the LORD's rebuke of Peter and cannot find it. I do find acts where blessed Peter testified to the leaders of Israel concerning the truth of Yeshua, that he was imprisoned and beaten, that, at his word in the Spirit of God, two Christians had their lives taken for lying and deceiving, another was raised from the dead, and many were healed.
The holy catholic apostolic church loves Peter and all the Jewish Apostles, and has taken the Gospel of Messiah to the known world.
What I do not believe in is the proposition that angels, fallen or otherwise, who are spirits, can somehow take over human bodies and procreate with human females. But that conjecture has been made. I don't think it is a valid one, Biblically or scientifically. It's stuff for writing sci-fi novels or screen plots.
But why do you ask?
It was a binding ruling and is even recorded in the scriptures so that the Jews and Gentiles throughout the world, who are obedient to Messiah, should be bound. The ruling is necessary and was bound by the Apostles and Elders (I assume these were eligible to be Apostles per Acts 1) with the Holy Spirit. That is binding. No church council can yet command the rebellious heart to obey it. That day is coming and there are twelve thrones assigned for the Apostles.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Yep. That’s what it was. And His disciples knew, from their teaching, that it was figurative. No transubstantiation yet, the night before, eh? Or all of Him wiuld not have gone to the Cross. Bites of Him would still be being digested. (This is getting kind of sickening if you think it through.)
And still Catholics insist they are eating blood.
Did you not want to ping "E" to this? (I am not mentioning her name, because then I would have to make the ping.) It was she who made this strange use of the texts.
Generally speaking, people will make their Scriptural interpretations (and there are so many of them!) on the basis of one of two hermeneutical frameworks: either their assumptions as 21st century Americans *, or the assumptions of a longer time-spanning interpretative community: the Calvinists, the Arminians, the Baptists, the Iglesia de Dios, the Church of Nigeria, or whatever.
The Catholic Church (w/ the Orthodox) is the longest-running interpretive community, going back to the Apostolic Age. That's why (when I am being particularly conscientious) I strive to give that testimony special weight.
This is why G.K. Chesterton said,
"We do not really need a religion that is right where we are right. What we need is a religion that is right where we are wrong."And
"The Catholic Church is the only thing that saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”
The model I propose would have none of this. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
I keep asking people for a holy catholic apostolic church alternative. That's usually when people go dumb and decline to specifically say which churches qualify. Do you have an alternative ? Is it Fundamental Baptist ?
You now try to misuse a quote from John’s gospel, but reject John’s definition of belief as expressed in his first epistle.
Belief as Yeshua and John mean it is not the simplistic and trivial kind of belief that your posts indicate.
Hebrews ch 6 clearly says that those that have the gift of the Holy Spirit can still ultimately be lost.
.
Only in your world of man earning and keeping his own salvation.
And that it is Incorruptible Blood as affirmed by Simon Peter (1 Pe. 1:18-19), rivers of it, as their digestive systems work on it. (This is sort of sickening.)
So now Hebrews is out of the CB Bible!
That thing is getting mighty thin.
.
Hebrews 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.As if to say all that he listed before does not equate to salvation. But what are these better things? Those things that accompany salvation, such as the full indwelling of God's Spirit, the testimony between our spirit and His that we belong to Him, the fruit of the Spirit, love joy peace self-control etc., the working of His power within us to make us new creations in Him, on and on the list could go. No one should sit in hubris assuming they are OK when they are not. Neither should we doubt Christ when He assures us we are safe in Him:
John 10:26-30 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. (30) I and my Father are one."Never perish." Is that true? Or is it false? Salvation is God's work, for God's glory. We should not be presumptuous, but neither should we be doubtful of His power to finish in us the work He has begun.
Anything similar to...
There seems to be TWO types of Catholics on FR: those who like Francis, and those who don't.
Those on either side are obviously making judgment calls.
I wonder...
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.