No, not me...
Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?
It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?
If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.
Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.
But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.
Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."
Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."
St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
Are you suggesting that God (Christ) is not omnipresent?
No. But you are if you are saying “by their (the Catholics you observed) fruit you shall know them (Catholics in general)?”
I'm prepared to be edumicated.
But it provides clearer communication to those who are unfamiliar to say:You are correct.
Praise G-d !
Omnipresense and Real Presense are two totally different terms.
Blessings on you and yours !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
If you want to abuse the idea of omnipresence that way, then why do you need a church? Just partake of communion by going out to your back yard and eat a fistful of dandelions, knowing that our omnipresent God is present in the dandelions.
OR, realize that "Real Presence" is more specific than "presence."
I agree it certainly WAS His Will that the first Bibles printed on a printing press by Gutenberg be the Vulgate and not some heretical and incomplete translation.
Maybe not to you, but the real presence of Christ is all around me and the Holy Spirit is dwelling within also. Maybe you haven't experienced this rebirth so you don't know this personally?
This was probably a Pre-vatican II CHurch. (Lovely, too IMHO) On either side of the "reredos" (that confection on the "East" wall) there are angels bearing candle stands. within the niches are statchoos of who knows what angles or saints, prolly. At the visial center (until the lighting guy came in and messed it all up) is a crucifix and I'd bet serious money (up to, well, as much as $5.00!) that under the crucifix was (and may still be (though I doubt it - no lit candle that I can see to draw one's attention to it) the "Tabernacle" -- the repository for the consecrated bread.
So in THOSE days when there would have been an altar right slap against (or minimally separated from)the reredos (Pronounced REAR dos - which means "That back thing at the back there") the focus would have been on the Tabernacle when the Mass was not being celebrated and on the priest's back when it was. The priest (and I have presided in Episcopal churches with essentially this layout) is going to focus either on the "Gifts" or on the book he's reading from or on the crucifix. He won't be lifting up his head much higher than that, unless he's already made an appointment with his chiropractor.
Then along comes Vatican II with its purported (not not actual) mandate of ugliness. In response to it, some pastor decided that, Word and Sacrament being equal conveyors of grace, they way to "say" that is to put he lectern/pulpit/ambo thingie (from which the Bible is read, intercessory prayers are led, and the sermon is preached) "downstage left" and the altar downstage right. That way the ambo has a very powerful place in terms of stage craft, while the altar has a place of honor, from the POV of the people, to the right of the pulipt, but no longer the exclusive focus.
It ends up looking weird because when the church was designed the focus was supposed to be on the tabernacle and altar.
But the weirdness itself is a kind of testimony to the pastor's intent to honor the Word.
This is by way of explanation, not persuasion.
Certainly the lighting is dramatic, but I think it's inappropriate because it draws the eye away from the focus. Of course, that could have been the photographer who was, as is understandable, taken with the way the light plays.
Got it, you are redefining words again and in so doing you are MOCKING the beliefs of NEARLY ALL Christians including a large percentage of Protestants.
Dear conservativegramma:
First of all, I think you are confused about what the Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Christ is not “re-sacrificed.” At Holy Mass, it is the same sacrifice - outside of time - and “we are there” at the foot of the cross, so to speak. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is outside time and space, as you can see in the Book of Revelation, which describes it.
Secondly, in the First Commandment which deals with the prohibition against graven images, God did not prohibit all statues, only ones which were made with the intent of being worshipped as gods. Otherwise, God would have violated His own commandment in these following Scripture verses:
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.” Exodus 25:1,18-20
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.” Numbers 21:8
Statues in a Church are holy reminders of those who have gone ahead, sort of like photos of loved ones that you put on your walls or desk. No one would ever accuse you of worshipping your grandchildren, even though you probably have photos of them in your wallet. It is the same with statues, pictures, or icons. They are there to remind us of that holy person and the virtues which he or she had, and to inspire us to follow in their footsteps as we “take up our cross and follow Him” as they did.
As for the statue of Mary that you find so offensive, if you look at her hands, they are pointing down toward the altar, which is right below her. She is showing us that Jesus comes to us, body, blood, soul, and divinity, at every Mass. (See John Chapter 6 for Jesus’ teaching on this. Also see I Corinthians 11:27-29 for St. Paul’s words of warning.) She is showing us the way to Him, which is the whole point.
If you want to know what the Church really teaches, as opposed to what ignorant people say the Church teaches, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is readily available from Amazon or any other bookstore, and is quite easy to understand. There is also a “Compendium” that gives the main points in abbreviated form. It might be better to be armed with the facts, rather than second- or third-hand hearsay.
okaaaay (shaking head here)....how so?
Observations of 30+ years in the rcc. School, masses, events, catechism, meals, watching families of my childhood friends. All point to emptiness of the rcc faith via lack of holiness and almost without exception no one living for the Lord.
Observation - conclusion. It's the way human build an understanding of the way the world works. If you want to call my conclusions based on observations bigotry, you may do so. But your playing the religion card the same way the rev. jackson plays the race card my friend.
Do you deny that the Real Presense is a tenet of faith for the majority of Christians?
Perhaps you should study what most Protestants believe, you will probably find that your personal beliefs in no way resemble even those.
Since your behavior IS bigotry, I shall call it so.
If I were in the group, I'd urge that we meet at set times during the day for prayer and "Spiritual communion". If we had a Bible, we'd be golden! If not, I'd try to id the people who had the most extensive Bible knowledge and get them to give little presentations. I'd organize a daily Rosary. (The normal complement of fingers is all you need for a rosary)
Spiritual communion is an internal "act" involving an act of faith to Christ and a prayer that he come into our hearts and unite us with Him and, in Him, with one another.
No our religion would not fall apart. Not even close. Some of the weak might have a tough time, but that's always true.
I like oysters. Can't we give her the clams.
I say we give her the calamari:
It’s a-time for the rock-a sacrifice, somebody Call-a-Mary.
Thank you both for your input! I will think about your responses for a while, and then (may) get back to you. At any rate, thanks again; both were quite interesting.
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.