Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'An Ordinance Forever' - The Biblical Origins of the Mass
CUF ^

Posted on 01/31/2009 3:49:27 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: annalex

It is evident you are teaching when our Lord said: “This do in remembrance of Me,” He was teaching literally, that we eat His literal flesh, and drink His literal blood.”
I believe and understand the Lord Jesus was emphazing and magnifying “Remember Me.”
Our focus should be on the person, and not on the loaf, nor the cup.”This do in remembrance of Me,” can be likened unto
“This is My beloved Son, hear Him.”
My prayer is; “that we all continue to examine ourselves,and earnestly seek to please Him, as we pursue godliness, and “Study to shew our selves approved unto God, rightly divding the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)


21 posted on 02/01/2009 8:56:08 AM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonyous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

You could not get more carnal than teaching: “you must literally drink human flesh, and you must drink literal blood.”

As God word says: “To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6)


22 posted on 02/01/2009 3:32:32 PM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonyous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LetMarch
He was teaching literally, that we eat His literal flesh, and drink His literal blood

Of course He was, -- why else say so?

You previously noted that John 6:63 Jesus also instructs that the food of the Eucharist is spiritual food, that is, it is not there to feed the body. However, nowhere does Jesus instructs us to take the Eucharist symbolically. It is true that we should remember Jesus (and not only in the Eucharist), that the Eucharist is to feed our spirit, that He is present in many ways at all times and not solely Eucharistically, and that we should imitate Him and become like Him. The Church does not disagree with any of that. However, to ignore the discourse on the Eucharist in John 6, or to dismiss the instruction to "do this" -- i.e. eat His Body is to ignore the clear teaching of the scripture.

23 posted on 02/01/2009 4:07:06 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
He says nothing about doing it repeatedly as even a Part of a sacrifice.

Better brush up on your reading of St. Paul's epistles before you try and pass yourself off as an authority on Scripture, again.

"And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is My body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew(that means proclaim for those of you who were educated in an outcome based curriculum) the death of the Lord, until He come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep." 1 Corinthians 11:24-30

24 posted on 02/01/2009 5:24:16 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: annalex; LetMarch

I should add that “do this” in Luke 22:19 means both for the Apostles to offer His body in the future, and for all of us to partake of it.

The qualifier “in rememberance” ensures that it is not a separate sacrifice that takes place at Mass but rather the one perfect sacrifice becomes accessible to us over time and space (Heb. 10:14)

It is true that in isolation that phrase alone might mean something akin to an anniversary celebration that we have for various occasions, for example, as we gather for a meal on an anniversary of a wedding or someone’s birth or death. But we also have John 6, that specifically discusses the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (my flesh is food indeed), and in 1 Corinthians the Eucharist is explained as having the power to unite His Church on the path to salvation (1 Cro 10:17, 1 Cor. 10:33), to show us the Paschal sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 11:26), but also to condemn those unworthy of receiving His body (1 Cor. 11:29). A mere symbol would not do that.


25 posted on 02/01/2009 6:35:53 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Nothing at all of the verses you posted disagree with what I posted - Paul was reminding them as it clearly says that this was all a "commemoration".

Shew is translated from the Greek word artos a masculine noun,and in other translations is "show" - the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter hence it was not to be cut but broken. It again, is a sign or picture of the death of Christ.

Further - what was this "sign" to signify? It was to serve as a reminder of what Christ had done - until His return (which hasn't happened yet). We are to commemorate Christ's payment for sin each time we celebrate the Lord's Supper.

And the last section you pasted - For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily - drinks and eats judgment unto themselves. A better (accuracy from the Greek) would be:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

And let us not leave out the context of 1 Corinthians 11 - and what the focus of this section was - The church at Corinth had become very polarized into what we today would call "cliques". When they would gather for the Lord's Supper (remember, in that time, they didn't have a formal "ceremony", it was "whenever they gathered together". This does not imply that they had the Lord's Supper every "Sunday" or worship day. Remember, for the entire congregation to come together in a local church at that time was not always an easy feat. Some would have to travel, weather, and other responsibilities and such prevented them all from coming together as one body, but I digress...

Anyway. This church had basically broken into the "haves" and the "have-nots". Those with money and riches were bringing their own "feast" for the Lord's Supper, while the poor arrived with little or nothing. And each group was eating and drinking on their own. This was not in the spirit that Christ intended and Paul was preaching against that practice - calling for each to come together.

Remember - the "Last Supper" - the event that serves as an example for celebrating the Lord's Supper, was at the conclusion of a fellowship meal - not of a "church service". Does this preclude having the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a regular service? - not at all. But again, look at the example.

And Christ's own words speak to this all being done IN REMEMBRANCE - not as a renewed sacrifice. But if we participate - and yet we are unworthy (definitely does not mean perfect, as none are righteous - period), but indicates one's heart towards the Lord and his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is somewhat akin to calling oneself a Christian, while blaspheming God at every turn. Wearing the title unworthily (without being a "born-again" believer in Jesus Christ" is dangerous. But again, I somewhat digress.

And far be it for me to lay ANY claim to being an authority on Scripture. A student of the Scriptures? Yes. Someone who takes study and prayer seriously? Yes. A seminarian? Yes. But I will never lay claim to being an expert or an authority, regardless of how much education I receive.

What I do know - I will never place my faith and trust in anything a human being can do or claims to be able to do. My faith and trust are completely and totally 100% in the redeeming work already accomplished by Jesus Christ in that once and for all sacrifice on the cross - His death, burial, and resurrection (which is part of what scriptural water baptism demonstrates...fodder for yet another debate), His continued work towards sanctification in my life, and the eternity He has for me in HIS Heaven.

26 posted on 02/01/2009 7:07:47 PM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Let me close, for I am persuaded that we cannot but continue in circles, with these thoughts.
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things, another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let him that eateth despise not him that eateth not; and let him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up; for God is able to make him stand.
One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Romans 14:1-5)
“......for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:10b)


27 posted on 02/01/2009 8:17:46 PM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonyous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

Excellent! And Amen!!!!!
A very good point: IN REMEMBRANCE-—NOT A RENEWED SACRIFICE!!!!!!!
As God’s Word teaches us, “to have the mind of Christ” and
“the Spirit of Christ” (Phil. 1:5 and Romans 8:9)

With this concept His Mind and the Spirit bears witness with my spirit, we are not called to eat human flesh, nor drink human blood.”


28 posted on 02/01/2009 8:34:21 PM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonyous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman; A.A. Cunningham
the context of 1 Corinthians 11

Apparently, for the Protestant heretics to take the Holy Scripture seriously it has to be addressed to them specifically, and not to the Church of Corinth.

The context is unity on the body of Christ (10 Cor. 16f); the Holly Sacrifice of the Mass is contrasted with heathen offerings (10 Cor. 10:20). That is interrupted in the begining passages of Ch. 11 with a discourse on appearance as a sign of internal schism (1 Cor 11:16f), then the topic of the Eucharist is resumed in v.20.

We see that the Eucharist is not an ordinary meal (v.22). Rather, the words of Institution in the Gospel of Luke are repeated (v. 23-27). This passage is, therefore, a reminder of the sacramental nature of the Eucharist as contrasted with a common memorial snack which the sectants had. One would think that a modern day sectant -- a Protestant heretic -- read that passage with some attention, as it applies to him dircetly, rather than wave it off as some kind of "context".

But is the error of the sectants in Corinth merely disunity? Not at all; the error is theological: they don't understand What they eat (v.29). The Eucharist itself will deliver the punishment. Signs and symbols cannot do that.

29 posted on 02/02/2009 7:22:14 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LetMarch
we cannot but continue in circles

I don't see any circles. The scripture plainly shows the Protestant desacralized view of the Eucharist as a gross error. The limited nature of the law of Moses and the call to charity in Romans 14 has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

30 posted on 02/02/2009 7:26:06 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Error? Like reading in “Holly Sacrifice of the Mass” where it does not exist in the Bible. I believe that is addressed quite clearly in:

Deuteronomy 12:32

Proverbs 30:6

1 Corinthians 4:6

Revelation 22:18-19 (MAY be referring to that particular book...so I won’t be too dogmatic about this one).

And why are we not to add to (or take away) from God’s Word?

Psalms 119: 160

Again, the Lord’s word does not relate in any way that the Lord’s Supper, itself, has any form of sacramental power or nature. Every time it is mentioned, it is as a remembrance of the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is proclaimed that we are to do it whenever we “do this” (as in gather to celebrate) - it is called an ordinance - a rule or command that we are too do it until the Lord’s return.

Every one of the Epistles included in the Canon of scripture is there because of a selection process - one of the big questions - did it have “universal” application - not just to the audience in the salutation. Was it spread beyond the person or church that letter was addressed to.

Each letter, then applies to each church (and we could delve into the whole “universal” vs. “local” church argument another time). Thus each letter is also applicable to us today. For that matter, I read the Bible as if every part were addressed to me. If it does not directly apply, I still have a lesson to learn from it - just as each individual and autonomous church had in the first century.

But context is so important in ANY reading to understand what is actually being said. And considering how important the Bible is, and the authority of the Bible - we should be careful then, if we are to understand what IT says, that we understand the context (one reason the study of Biblical History is so important to Bible translation and interpretation. In fact, History helps to give teeth to the study of Biblical languages (primarily Greek and Hebrew).

Your interpretation that the chapter comes to an abrupt stop to address an apparent schism (which was indeed in the brewing within that local church at Corinth), then just as abruptly changes direction back to the Lord’s Supper comes from your presupposition. Yet it is all interrelated, and further does not match Paul’s literary style or the logic of the text itself.

The early church, from an historical perspective, would have regularly eaten - some together, some not. And bread being a staple along with wine, the “elements” would have been fairly common. BUT...

They were instructed by Christ first, then by Paul, to assemble together to solemnly commemorate Christ’s sacrifice. You are correct, when they celebrated this - it was no ordinary meal. But it was usually celebrated in conjunction with a meal - just as the “Last Supper” was.

Also keep in mind what “doing church” was like for the early Christians, so many of which had to exercise their worship in private (most early churches were in member’s homes). It was often an all-day affair. Thus it would seem a logical extension that they would share a meal - and then would celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

And remember what the term “Protestant” means... For some of us, who are Baptist and of the more conservative varieties who can be called “landmark” Baptists - we believe that the “true” church has existed, very often in parallel to, the “Catholic” church (a term that developed in the 2nd and 3rd Century - but still not universally applied to the religion of Rome until even later) throughout church History from the time of the Apostles. Thus, technically, Landmark Baptists do not believe that their faith evolved out of the Catholic Church, although the Reformation did a great deal to help the cause.


31 posted on 02/02/2009 8:03:13 AM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LetMarch
"You could not get more carnal than teaching: “you must literally drink human flesh, and you must drink literal blood.”

You'll have to take it up with Christ, he taught it.

The context of John Ch 6 bears witness to it.

The original Greek bears witness to it.

The Church Fathers bear witness to it

St. Paul bears witness to it.

Regards, Gonzo

32 posted on 02/02/2009 10:28:29 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

If you wish to dispute the analysis of the text of 1 Cor. 10 and 11, please do so.

My contention is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is fully explained in the relevant passages of 1 Cor 10-11. I explained why: the Sacrament is related to the Christian unity, salvation, and above all is explained to literally be the body and blood of our Savior. Failure to understand it is explained to be damning in itself. Memorial meals do not do that. What, precisely, in this paragraph do you dispute?

You made references to various verses to do with adding to the Scripture. The Holy Catholic Church not only did not add or subtract from the Scripture — she is what made the scripture available to you today, despite Protestant corruption. The Church can however, authoritatively explain the scripture. If you think anything was added to it by us, please do not hesitate to substantiate your charge, briefly, and I will respond, also briefly as it is not the main topic.

Out of curiosity, what scriptural or historical record is landmark Baptist mythology based on? I am aware that Baptists do not like to be called Protestants, but on the issue of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament you seem to be no different from any post-Calvin Protestant. Let us remember that the topic of the thread is the Catholic teaching, not the distinctions that may exist among the non-Catholics.


33 posted on 02/02/2009 10:34:40 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Thank you,

And praise God I can and have taken it up with my Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. As we know, He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.(John 1:11-14)

And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:16-17)

Aren’t you glad it is not men who decides who is saved, and it is not men that saves. We praise God, that salvation is of the Lord.

In His mercy and grace;
LetMarch


34 posted on 02/02/2009 4:52:05 PM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonyous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annalex
OK... I will try to be fairly quick with this, as I have quite a bit yet to get done this evening. 1. The verses from 1 Corinthians used do not identify the "elements" as literally the body and blood of Christ. That interpretation quite literally did not become a Catholic doctrine officially until well after the 3rd Century - well over 200 years after Paul and the other Apostles were long gone, and well after all of the books now considered the New Testament Canon were penned and widely distributed. 2. The Church of the 2nd and 3rd Century was in no-way unified as "one body", and was quite divided over even basic items as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. It was the 6th Century before there was a near universal (among Catholics) acceptance of the superiority and authority of the Roman Bishop, thus the reason many histories point to approximately 600 A.D. as the beginning of the fully-recognized papacy. Yet in that time, the church struggled with many of what are considered doctrine - and a great deal of it comes from the "revelation" as brought forth in tradition, not out of literal or direct instruction from the Bible. 3. The concept of "transubstantiation" was one hotly debated within the walls of the Catholic Church for quite some time, yet was not the view expressed by Paul. Further, Christ uses the word "anamnēsis" or "memory/remembrance". Whenever we partake of it at what the early Christians called the "Love Feast", we were to be reminded by the cup of Christ's Blood shed for us, and by the bread - his body which was sacrificed. From catholic.com" Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. "In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. " The official line is that teaching and tradition are just as important as the Bible. Further on down the same page, the claim is made that Paul addressed Timothy in a way that backs tradition and teaching as scripture - and even tries to use "context" to back this up - yet it completely ignores a fact - a great deal of the early scriptures were orally taught because not every church had copies of all the letters. Yet would it make any logical sense that Paul would teach something differently than he wrote it down (considering that the written word was actually God's Word through Paul)? Unless Paul was teaching different doctrine than he wrote on - then the answer is simple - Dramatic turns in Catholic church teachings and doctrine throughout the centuries - in comparison to God's Word which remains - just as the Divine Author - constant and secure. And the Lord's word cannot, because of the Author's perfection, conflict or contradict itself. Yet the Catholic Church relies on Deuterocanonical books (AKA - the Apocrypha) to justify those practices and doctrines that cannot be justified or proven through the standard Canon, even when such books or particular teachings might conflict with the other scriptures. This is almost comparable to the Mormon use of their own "Deuterocanonical books" - the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price... Interesting parallel.
35 posted on 02/02/2009 6:40:54 PM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
I understand "fairly quick", but, God, no paragraphs?

1. The verses from 1 Corinthians used do not identify the "elements" as literally the body and blood of Christ. That interpretation quite literally did not become a Catholic doctrine officially until well after the 3rd Century - well over 200 years after Paul and the other Apostles were long gone, and well after all of the books now considered the New Testament Canon were penned and widely distributed.

1 Cor 10:16 is close, and 1 Cor. 11:27-29 makes it clear that whatever the elements are in some intrinsic sense, they have the same effect as the actual body and blood. Further, the words of Jesus repeated in v. 24 leave no doubt: "this is my body". This is even if we leave John 6 out of scope, as does St. Paul.

2. The Church of the 2nd and 3rd Century was in no-way unified as "one body", and was quite divided over even basic items as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. It was the 6th Century before there was a near universal (among Catholics) acceptance of the superiority and authority of the Roman Bishop, thus the reason many histories point to approximately 600 A.D. as the beginning of the fully-recognized papacy.

What does that have to do with anything? It is indeed evident from both canonical and early non-canonical writings that the unity of the Church suffered from heresies. How does that make body and blood of the Lord any less so? If anything, the supernatural power of the Eucharistic feast can be credited with bringing the orthodox parts together while cutting off the heresy. This is the same power of communion that is in operation today, that was described in St. Paul in chapter 10.

3. The concept of "transubstantiation" was one hotly debated within the walls of the Catholic Church for quite some time, yet was not the view expressed by Paul.

The concept that the scripture expresses directly, in John 6 and in "this is my body" language of the Institution, is Real Presence. Transubstantiation is inded a later conceptual framework that resulted from the scholastics' synthesis of Aristotelian theology and Catholic theology of the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is what explains the Real Presence. But one does not have to believe in transubstantiation in order to believe the Real Presence. to believe in the Real Presence one only needs to read the scripture as written. "This is my body"; "my flesh is food indeed" is clear enough.

Further, Christ uses the word "anamnēsis" or "memory/remembrance". Whenever we partake of it at what the early Christians called the "Love Feast", we were to be reminded by the cup of Christ's Blood shed for us, and by the bread - his body which was sacrificed.

Well, of course we are reminded. That is the least of what is happening. But, as I made the point earlier, reminders don't feed the spirit, don't give everlasting life, and on the other hand don't condemn the sinner. Christ does.

From catholic.com" Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. "In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. " The official line is that teaching and tradition are just as important as the Bible.

Yes. That we teach: that the Holy Tradition is the source of the Holy Scripture as it preceded it. We also teach that the role and prerogative of the Church is to explain the Scripture, and that private interpretations of the Scripture are to be discouraged, at least unasmuch as they deviate from the magisterial teaching. Are you commenting on my question where did we ADD to the Scripture? My question still stands: whether you hold the Church as authority on the scripture or not (in reason your should, but that is another topic) explaining the scripture is not adding to the scripture.

Further on down the same page, the claim is made that Paul addressed Timothy in a way that backs tradition and teaching as scripture - and even tries to use "context" to back this up - yet it completely ignores a fact - a great deal of the early scriptures were orally taught because not every church had copies of all the letters. Yet would it make any logical sense that Paul would teach something differently than he wrote it down (considering that the written word was actually God's Word through Paul)? Unless Paul was teaching different doctrine than he wrote on - then the answer is simple - Dramatic turns in Catholic church teachings and doctrine throughout the centuries - in comparison to God's Word which remains - just as the Divine Author - constant and secure.

There were no "dramatic turns" in the Catholic doctrine. There was refinement of accepted doctrine, and there were non-Catholic heresies. But you are correct, of course: nothing that comes from the authentic Holy Tradition can possibly contradict scripture, and indeed, written word has advantages over unwritten one. This is why the evidence of the Holy Tradition is likewise in permanent form: they are ancient hymnody, iconography, hagiagraphy, exegesis of the Fathers of the Church, the Liturgical canons, etc. It is not like priests in seminaries are wispered something orally into their ears while holding their pens down.

And the Lord's word cannot, because of the Author's perfection, conflict or contradict itself. Yet the Catholic Church relies on Deuterocanonical books (AKA - the Apocrypha) to justify those practices and doctrines that cannot be justified or proven through the standard Canon, even when such books or particular teachings might conflict with the other scriptures. This is almost comparable to the Mormon use of their own "Deuterocanonical books" - the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price... Interesting parallel.

The Deuterocanon comes from the Septuagint, was standard reference material for the Holy Apostles as we can ascertain from the way in which they quoted the Old Testament, and it in no way contradicts the rest of the Scripture. What they do contradict is the theological fantasies of Luther, which is the reason he worked to get them removed. This is a good moment to recall that prohibition of altering the scripture and see who is really guilty of that.

36 posted on 02/02/2009 7:18:15 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

What the heck happened to the formatting? The preview showed it all nice and neat with paragraphs... I just came back and find this mess??? Ugh


37 posted on 02/02/2009 9:32:30 PM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

I think I separated your post logically; I did not skip any, just broke it into sections as I answered. It is a mystery why the preview didn’t post.


38 posted on 02/02/2009 10:24:03 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson