Posted on 09/01/2017 1:40:56 PM PDT by NYer
The first part of the Catholic Mass is known as the Liturgy of the Word. It consists of the congregation listening to the word of God. The word “liturgy” means the rites and ceremonies of the Mass. During the Mass, trained parishioners called lectors read aloud two Scripture passages to the congregation; typically one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. In between the readings, a psalm is sung or read. The readings are all found in the Bible, but the lectors read from a book known as the lectionary. This book contains Scripture, psalm and Gospel readings assigned for each day of the Church year. After the lectors complete their readings, a deacon or a priest (only an ordained minister) reads the Gospel.
On Sundays, the deacon or priest doesn’t use the lectionary but another book called the Book of Gospels, which is the book you see being carried during the opening procession of Sunday Mass; it is the same book the deacon or priest carries from the altar to the ambo and from which the Gospel is read. Neither the Scriptures nor the Gospel is randomly selected; they are set on a three-year schedule in a very regulated and assigned order (see sidebar). There are a total of four readings on Sunday and three during the weekday Masses.
The Scriptures always have been at the heart of Catholic teaching. On any given Sunday in every Roman Catholic parish around the world, the identical Scriptures, psalm and Gospel are read. This universal practice, this sign of oneness, is often a surprise to those inquiring about the Faith. The first reading on Sunday is most always from the Old Testament and tied to the theme of the Gospel for that day. The second reading is typically from the epistles of the New Testament. During the week, the one Scripture reading is from the Old Testament and, like Sundays, is connected to the Gospel.
In most every Catholic parish, instead of Bibles in the pews there are books known as Mass books (or missals) that contain not only the Sunday Mass readings but the prayers and sequence of the Mass. Weekly parish bulletins contain a list of daily readings for the forthcoming week so parishioners can use their Bible at home and prepare in advance.
The absence of Bibles in the pews goes back to an early period in the Church when Catholics, other than the clergy, were not encouraged to read the Scriptures because the Church was concerned that the ordinary person would not understand or would misinterpret God’s word. Additionally, especially in the Middle Ages, heretical movements against the Church resulted in erroneous and corrupt interpretations.
Until the 15th-century invention of the printing press, there were few copies of the Scriptures. Monks often manually hand-copied the Scriptures — a process that took years to complete. Consequently, each parish was fortunate if it had one handwritten copy, and that copy was secured in the church. Even if other copies were available, many parishioners couldn’t read anyway. Thus, the Scriptures were proclaimed verbally and then explained by the bishop or priest.
This situation changed somewhat with the invention of the printing press as more Bibles became available. Catholics, those who could do so, were encouraged to read the holy Scriptures, but they were cautioned to read only the Catholic version of the Bible, as there were many other versions with interpretations other than Catholic.
Today the Church hierarchy exhorts us to read and study the word of God. However, the Church remains concerned over the proper interpretation of the Scriptures and considers the magisterium — the teaching authority of the Church — the pope and bishops, as the one true teaching authority. If individual Catholics were encouraged to reach their own private conclusions on God’s word, there would be thousands of different interpretations and even splinter groups, each with their own set of conclusions — not unlike other churches today. The unity of our Church would be greatly impacted.
Once it was suggested to a Protestant that he read the wonderful story about Susanna found in Chapter 13 of Daniel. He said he didn’t know the story, but he would read it. The next day he said he was confused because there was no Chapter 13 in Daniel; further, he couldn’t find the story anywhere in the Bible. Well, Chapter 13 is in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Protestant version. Catholics use a Bible that is different from that used by Protestants and, in fact, there have been occasions when the Catholic Church has been accused of adding books to the Bible. That is not the case.
|
|
| How is the Lectionary Arranged? |
|---|
|
The Lectionary is arranged in two cycles, one for Sundays one for weekdays. The Sunday cycle is divided into three years, labeled A, B and C — [2015 was Year B, 2016 was Year C, 2017 is Year A]. ... In Year A, we read mostly from the Gospel of Matthew. In Year B, we read the Gospel of Mark and Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John. In Year C, we read the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of John is read during the Easter season in all three years. The first reading, usually from the Old Testament, reflects important themes from the Gospel reading. The second reading is usually from one of the epistles, a letter written to an early church community. These letters are read semi-continuously. Each Sunday, we pick up close to where we left off the Sunday before, though some passages are never read. The weekday cycle is divided into two years, Year I and Year II. Year I is read in odd-numbered years (2015, 2017, etc.) and Year II is used in even-numbered years (2014, 2016, etc.) The Gospels for both years are the same. During the year, the Gospels are read semi-continuously, beginning with Mark, then moving on to Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of John is read during the Easter season. For Advent, Christmas and Lent, readings are chosen that are appropriate to the season. The first reading on weekdays may be taken from the Old or the New Testament. Typically, a single book is read semi-continuously (i.e., some passages are not read) until it is finished and then a new book is started.”
|
Is it our fault if you get the principle wrong, misrepresent it back to us, and then are shocked that we now disagree? Take pains to understand the argument first, and then critique it.
What do you mean by "understand it on your own"? Am I entitled to my own interpretations/illuminations of the Bible?
Yes, provided it doesn't contradict what the Church has already said. I have all sorts of goofy personal "understandings" about the Bible. But they are just that. If I were one of you I'd go off and form my own church on the basis of these "understandings"....it'd be just as ridiculous and irrelevant as all the other fake churches.
True; but you CAN get them so emotional that they'll set out to prove YOU wrong!!
This has happened to a lot of FR's EX-Mormons.
BTW; here is a little background of the source of the quote you supplied:
Kinda like: Call no man Father??
Lets do that with Catholics, who have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture within the broad parameters of Rome, and compare their take with a group of evangelicals (in the historical sense) who, contrary to the majority of Roman scholarship, actually believe that such stories as Balaam and his donkey, Jonah and the whale, etc. are literal.
Why we could even compare modern Catholic commentary on the Bible with that of her past.
On another current thread, we even have a Catholic poster, who at least in the past was apparently a priest, who condemns corporal discipine of children, and rejects what Proverbs says on the subject as "crude scientific beliefs from the Bronze Age ."
(Carry on any debate about that on that thread, as per RM rules)
Why; right here on the pages of FR!!!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Ya really want Augustine’s; too?
How very kind of you!
Speaking of fakes; how's your own pope doing these days?
INDEED!
Or else one of FR's overworked mods will give you a spanking!
Indeed the Assumption. As a man named Ratzinger testified:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).
For history, tradition and Scripture is only what Rome says it is in any conflict, which reasoning no less than Manning resorted to:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, , pp. 227-228.
Also, Examining the evidence, let us first read what assumption supporter RC Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. confessed:
In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.
The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,.. in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."
...And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9(After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23). no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death....
In the Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII quotes but three Fathers of the Church, all Orientals. St. John Damascene (d. 749)...St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) ...St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)...
Apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the fifth century.
The first remote testimony to which Pope Pius XII turns in order to indicate the fact that our present belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother was likewise the belief of the Church from the earliest times is the Sacred Liturgy...
...The feast of the Assumption began in the East as did many of the older Marian feasts... However, due to the fact that neither Sacred Scripture nor early Tradition speaks explicitly of the last days of our Blessed Mother on earth and of her Assumption into heaven, the liturgy of this feast did not mention them either. Later, when the apocryphal Transitus Mariae ” in which the death and Assumption of Mary are described in detail ” became popular among the faithful, the facts of her death and Assumption were inserted into the feast... - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469
And William Webster documents,
...the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ˜there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...' (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17).
How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source.
[The eminent Mariologist, Juniper Carol, O.F.M.] gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:
An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history's mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).
The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo –Melito' (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149).
Also,
The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
Also, Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, states:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
Certainly not yours. Although as i recall, my own research has shown the stats from http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm to be too low (a daily Mass-going Catholic only hear 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle) yet only a vert very small % of RCs go to Mass daily, and as a former weekly mass-going RC and lector I know that even the verses that are read often are only parts of verses, and or have sections in brackets that may be omitted.
Moreover, while more of the Bible is read at Mass than just the readings, these are most redundant readings, as the readings for Sunday Mass are repeated every three years, while those for for Weekday Mass are repeated every two years. And while the amounts of the Bible that RCs read/hear is likely more than in many Protestant churches - often wrongly broadly defined - most RCs the only reading/hearing of the Bible is likely at Mass:
42.1% of Evangelical Protestants and 7.1% of Catholics read Scripture weekly or more. (http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf) Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23%. (http://www.science20.com/print/972444) 25% of Evangelical Christians and 20% of other Protestants and 7% of Catholics said the read the Bible on a daily basis. 44% of Catholics said they rarely or never read the Bible, along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants. 68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of Catholics. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/december_2008/catholics_protestants_practice_faith_in_different_ways)
An industrious RC on another forum reports "by my calculations, the 3-year Sunday readings cover about 5%-10% of the Old Testament and about 42% of the New Testament." "I was able to come up with a more precise estimate of the Old Testament covered in the 3-year Sunday readings based on the number of verses read: 5%. The Old Testament contains about 27,524 verses of which about 1362 are read in the 3-year Sunday readings. The New Testament contains about 7954 verses of which about 3372 are read in the 3-year Sunday readings."
"The readings for Sunday Mass are repeated every three years. The reading for Weekday Mass are repeated every two years. The following table, based on my own calculations (and therefore likely not entirely error-free), will give you an idea of about what percentage of the Bible, Testament, or each individual book of the Bible, you might hear read at Mass over the course of any three-year period, based on the number of verses read. (Note: All optional Mass readings were included. Also, a verse was counted even if only part of verse is used.)"
Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays
Entire Bible (35478). . . . . . 14% (5035) . . . 30% (10722)
Old Testament (27524) . . . 6% (1663) . . . . 18% (4830)
Genesis (1532) . . . . . . . . . 8% (123) . . . . . 27% (420)
Exodus (1213). . . . . . . . . . 10% (127) . . . . 20% (245)
Leviticus (859). . . . . . . . . . 1% (8). . . . . . . 5% (41)
Numbers (1288. . . . . . . . . 1% (17). . . . . . 6% (82)
Deuteronomy (959). . . . . . 5% (52). . . . . . 13% (123)
Joshua (657). . . . . . . . . . . 2% (10). . . . . . 7% (43)
Judges (618). . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 8% (51)
Ruth (85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 25% (21)
1 Samuel (809) . . . . . . . . . 3% (24). . . . . . 19% (153)
2 Samuel (695) . . . . . . . . . 3% (21). . . . . . 15% (107)
1 Kings (816). . . . . . . . . . . 4% (31). . . . . . 19% (158)
2 Kings (719). . . . . . . . . . . 1% (14). . . . . . 16% (118)
1 Chronicles (943) . . . . . . 1% (6). . . . . . . 1% (9)
2 Chronicles (821) . . . . . . 2% (18) . . . . . . 3% (26)
Ezra (280) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 8% (21)
Nehemiah (405) . . . . . . . . 2% (9) . . . . . . 5% (20)
Tobit (245). . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 32% (79)
Judith (340). . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 3% (9)
Esther (272) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . 6% (15)
1 Maccabees (921). . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 6% (53)
2 Maccabees (556). . . . . . 2% (12) . . . . . 7% (38)
Job (1060). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% (17) . . . . . 8% (87)
Psalms (2524) . . . . . . . . . . 26% (648) . . . 50% (1263)
Proverbs (914). . . . . . . . . . 3% (24). . . . . . 6% (56)
Ecclesiastes (222). . . . . . . 2% (4). . . . . . . 15% (34)
Song of Songs (117) . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 11% (13)
Wisdom (436) . . . . . . . . . . 11% (50). . . . . 25% (109)
Sirach (1372). . . . . . . . . . . 4% (54) . . . . . 16% (226)
Isaiah (1281). . . . . . . . . . . 15% (192). . . . 26% (335)
Jeremiah (1364) . . . . . . . . 32% (43). . . . . 12% (165)
Lamentations (154). . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 5% (8)
Baruch (213). . . . . . . . . . . 13% (27). . . . . 22% (46)
Ezekiel (1255) . . . . . . . . . . 4% (48) . . . . . 14% (172)
Daniel (530) . . . . . . . . . . . 1% (7) . . . . . . 38% (204)
Hosea (196) . . . . . . . . . . . 7% (13). . . . . . 19% (38)
Joel (73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16% (12). . . . . 44% (32)
Amos (146) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9% (13) . . . . . 35% (51)
Obadiah (21) . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 0% (0)
Jonah (48) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% (6) . . . . . . 90% (43)
Micah (105). . . . . . . . . . . . 4% (4) . . . . . . 23% (24)
Nahum (47). . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . 15% (7)
Habakkuk (56). . . . . . . . . 9% (5). . . . . . . 18% (10)
Zephaniah (53) . . . . . . . . 15% (8) . . . . . . 25% (13)
Haggai (38) . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0). . . . . . . 45% (17)
Zechariah (211) . . . . . . . . 2% (4). . . . . . . 12% (25)
Malachi (55). . . . . . . . . . . 22% (12). . . . . 36% (20)
Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays
New Testament (7954) . . . . . . 42% (3372) . . . . 74% (5892)
Matthew (1071) . . . . . . . . . . . 58% (623) . . . . . 87% (936)
Mark (678). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61% (412) . . . . . 97% (656)
Luke (1151) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60% (690) . . . . . 89% (1026)
John (878) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62% (545) . . . . . 95% (833)
Acts of the Apostles (1006) . . 18% (182) . . . . . 52% (525)
Romans (433). . . . . . . . . . . . . 26% (114) . . . . . 53% (230)
1 Corinthians (437). . . . . . . . . 40% (173) . . . . . 59% (259)
2 Corinthians (256). . . . . . . . . 21% (53). . . . . . 50% (127)
Galatians (149) . . . . . . . . . . . 28% (41). . . . . . 60% (89)
Ephesians (155) . . . . . . . . . . . 59% (91). . . . . . 91% (141)
Philippians (104) . . . . . . . . . . 47% (49). . . . . . 71% (74)
Colossians (95) . . . . . . . . . . . 37% (35). . . . . . 68% (65)
1 Thessalonians (88) . . . . . . . 44% (39). . . . . . 74% (65)
2 Thessalonians (47) . . . . . . . 36% (17). . . . . . 62% (29)
1 Timothy (113) . . . . . . . . . . . 18% (20). . . . . . 53% (60)
2 Timothy (83) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30% (25). . . . . . 67% (56)
Titus (46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% (8). . . . . . . 61% (28)
Philemon (25). . . . . . . . . . . . . 32% (8) . . . . . . 56% (14)
Hebrews (303) . . . . . . . . . . . . 26% (80). . . . . . 62% (188)
James (108). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29% (31). . . . . . 92% (99)
1 Peter (105). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% (39). . . . . . 81% (85)
2 Peter (61) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% (11). . . . . . 33% (20)
1 John (105). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30% (31). . . . . . 100% (105)
2 John (13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . . 46% (6)
3 John (15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . . 27% (4)
Jude (25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% (0) . . . . . . . 28% (7)
Revelation (404) . . . . . . . . . . 14% (55). . . . . . 41% (165) (Todd Easton: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1063633&postcount=9)
Every word is true. My mom was exposed to SB beliefs for decades and appears to have assimilated very little of it. You think that is a lie?
Consider that Muhammad seems to have had the idea that Mary was part of the Godhead.
As the readers may already know, a cursory reading of the Islamic scripture shows that the author of the Quran distorted or was grossly mistaken about the beliefs of Jews and Christians. For example, the author accuses Christians of holding certain theological and christological beliefs that do not correspond to the facts. The Quran erroneously assumes and condemns Christians for believing in three gods consisting of the Father, Mary his wife, and Jesus their offspring. Thus, the Quran erroneously assumes that the implication of Christian beliefs is that God acquired a son through procreation, that God and Mary had sexual relations in order to have Jesus their Son (God forbid such horrendous blasphemy!).
These distortions of biblical teaching and historic Christian beliefs are well known and often commented on by Christian writers, evangelists, apologists, polemicists, scholars etc. They are even admitted by secular writers and sources.
One such writer was the late Christian scholar and Islamicist E.M. Wherry, who commented on the Quran’s distortion of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in his A Comprehensive Commentary of the Quran. In reference to Sura 4:169[171] Wherry wrote:
Say not... three, "Namely, God, Jesus, Mary. For the Eastern writers mention a sect of Christians which held the Trinity to be composed of those three; but it is allowed that this heresy has been long since extinct (Elmacin, p. 227). The passage, however, is equally levelled against the Holy Trinity, according to the doctrine of the orthodox Christians, who, as Al Baidhawi acknowledges, believe the divine nature to consist of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; by the Father, understanding God's essence; by the Son, his knowledge; and by the Holy Ghost, his life." - Sale.
See also Prelim. Disc., p. 64.
The commentators Baidhawi, Jalaluddin, and Yahya agree in interpreting the three to mean "God, Jesus, and Mary," in the relation of Father, Mother, and Son. This misrepresentation of the Scripture doctrine again stamps the Qur'an as a fabrication, and furnishes the evidence of its being such on the ground of its own claims. The history of the Church, as well as the Bible, proves the statement of the text, as interpreted by authoritative commentators, to be false; for even granting that some obscure Christian sect did hold such a doctrine of the Trinity (of which statement we have yet to learn the truth), yet the spirit of Muhammad's inspiration represents it as the faith of the Christians generally. In almost every case where the Qur'an refers to the Christian faith, it is to inveigh against the idea that God has a son. See chap. ix. 31, xix. 31, xliii. 59. (Source)
Even the Concise Dictionary of Islam admits:
In some cases the "material" which forms the substance of Quranic narrative, details of the creeds of Christianity and Judaism for example, does not correspond to those religion’s own understanding of their beliefs. This could be said, for example, of the notion of the Trinity found in the Quran, the story of Satan’s refusal to bow down to Adam, the Docetist view of the crucifixion, all of which can be traced to the dogmas of Gnostic sects, which are heretical in relationship to orthodox Christianity and Judaism. The Trinity "seen" in the Quran is not the Trinity of the Apostles Creed, or of the Nicene Creed. (Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion [Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon 1992], pp. 152-153)
Noted Protestant Church historian and Patristic expert Philip Schaff wrote regarding Muhammad’s mistaken views:
In rude misconception or wilful perversion, Mohammed seems to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with Gabriel. "God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should have a son!" Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and worship of Mary as "the mother of God" may have occasioned this strange mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical women called Collyridians (Kollurivde"), who rendered divine worship to Mary. Epiphanius, Haer. 79. (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV, Chapter III, "Mohammedanism in its Relation to Christianity", fn. 188; source)
As we shall now see, the Quran erroneously claims that Christians believe God is "the third of three," with Jesus and Mary comprising the other two:
O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three (thalathatun). Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. S. 4:171
They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 5:17
They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’ For the Messiah said, ‘Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.’ They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Third of Three (thalithu thalathatin). No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement. Will they not turn to God and pray His forgiveness? God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him passed away; his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to them; then behold, how they perverted are! S. 5:70-75
The above passages presuppose that when Christians say God is three they meant God, Jesus and Mary. After all, why bother mentioning that Mary ate food and that Allah could destroy her if he wanted? Doesn’t this assume that she cannot be a god or goddess if she had to eat and could be annihilated? The next passage should help erase any doubts that this is what the Quran means by all this:
And when God said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?’ He said, ‘To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen I only said to them what Thou didst command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when Thou didst take me to Thyself, Thou wast Thyself the watcher over them; Thou Thyself art witness of everything.’ S. 5:116-117
More by God's grace http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_trinity.htm
See 112 above.
You never answered ebb’s question: at which church do you hear the entire bible? Perhaps if we take out the “you” and ask it more generally: which church proclaims/discusses the entire Bible (including books like “Numbers”)?
For decades now NAB commentary and study helps (in the study version) have too often thrown the text down a slippery slope, such as that historical accounts were largely "folk tales, while such things as Jonah and the fish, the Flood of Noah, and Balaam and the donkey were fables, and things like Joshua's conquests were folk tales, .and the sermon on the Mount was not actually where it says, etc..
And then you have the pope saying the blood of Christ has redeemed even the atheists, which blood makes us children of God, and writing a verbose social gospel encyclical implicitly teaching Climate Change is real, and also affirming other liberal agendas. And some papal teaching calls for submission to all that the pope publicly teaches, and some hold that rel. assent is required of all encyclicals, even social teaching, while others wholly dismiss the latest example as requiring anything (but scorn).
It is terrifying how ignorant some people are about the basic stories of Scripture!
And Catholic come in about last in personal Bible reading: The highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% - https://www.barna.com/research/protestants-catholics-and-mormons-reflect-diverse-levels-of-religious-activity
25% of Evangelical Christians and 20% of other Protestants and 7% of Catholics said the read the Bible on a daily basis. 44% of Catholics said they rarely or never read the Bible, along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/december_2008/catholics_protestants_practice_faith_in_different_ways
So I had the desire and the opportunity to learn, and to learn to love the Bible. I went off on my Naaman the Syrian rant the other day, and the vice president of our province said that I had a gift. I don't know about that, but I do know I just LOVE it! It's wonderful! It just frustrates me sometimes. I want to get up and say, “Do you clowns get how AWESOME that reading was?”
Which was basically my experience after I became born again while yet a weekly mass-going RC. Thank God he led me out to worship, fellowship and be taught where that is not a rare thing.
If I said that your brethren would object. But the one basic duty of Catholics is to follow their pastors as docile sheep, while the church began in dissent by hearts obedient to Scriptural Truths, which is what true Prots are to have, which requires dissent from Rome .
And when this papcpacy is over, maybe some of the noisiest dissenters will see that there’s a problem with trumpeting docility to JP2 and BenXVI, and then dissing Francis.
I highly doubt it. Then will go back to telling us we must not ascertain the validity of teaching by examination of it by Scripture, while they ascertain the validity of teaching based upon their judgment of what historical Catholic teaching says, rather than how V2 and such manifestly interprets it.
To be fair...ebb's not answered a lot of questions we've put to him/her either.
One cannot glean anything from the scriptures unless it is given to them and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. A case in point are the Sadducees who were well verse in the scriptures yet our Lord Jesus stated they didn't know them.
So how much a Catholic or Protestant reads is immaterial unless they pray that God would open their eyes. And, if this would happen, then the Catholic would become a Protestant. ;O)
“It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.” Source: The Western Watchman, a Catholic newspaper published in St. Louis, August 9, 1894, “The Word of God”, The English Bible Before the Reformation, page 7.
ITEM #7 POPE CLEMENT XI ON READING SCRIPTURE
From UNIGENITUS, The Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713:
The following statements are condemned as being error:
79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.
84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.
Have these been rescinded?
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.
