Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[wagglebee]

Perhaps you've never heard of the Presbyterian Order of Worship. It is uniform throughout Presbyterian churches. I googled "Presbyterian Order of Worship" and this is the first entry that came up. I don't even know where this church is located. Please note the "Gospel reading" from Matthew 6:19-33 and later Matthew 28:18-20...

Well, I've got to comment you on your efforts, but it still doesnt' answer the question.

First of all the link you provided would seem to indicate that this Church is PCA and not OPC.

Secondly, I asked about EVERY WEEK, you gave me a link for the service on August 28, 2005 (nearly five years ago). I never doubted that the Gospel is read SOME weeks, but I asked about EVERY week.

So, I did the same thing you did and googled "Presbyterian Order of Worship" and found Bryce Avenue Presbyterian Church in Los Alamos, NM.

You will see from their Order of Worship, for THIS COMING SUNDAY, that there is no reading from the Gospel:

Bryce Avenue Presbyterian Church, Order of Worship, August 1, 2010

[Cronos]

One thing I've learnt on this forum is that there are Protestants and then there are the usual suspects who post anti-Catholic screeds. You do have members from the former group posting things against The Church occasionally, but they
1. have a life
2. Are pretty positively religious (i.e. they spend more time praying than discussing why they are not Catholic)
3. Will generally post their opposition in sensible language (without mutliple font color changes and size changes)

Then, in the latter group you have people you are:
1. Members of sub-sub-groups of the sub-group the OrthodoxPresbyterianChurch (ever heard of it? it had 28,000 members as of 2005 and that is decreasing. It was formed only in 1936 but since then had split thrice to form the Bible PresbyterianChurch, the EvangelicalPresbyterianChurch and the AmericanPresbyterianChurch and these have spawned their own sub-sub-sub-groups)
2. Unitarians who deny the Trinity
3. Confused Baptists who attack their own kind
4. Quixotic font-color addicts who aren't in the mainstream Assemblies of God pentecostals but tag along with the Word-of-Faith crowd (the same group that say there are multiple Gods (check it out, that's the least stupid thing the WOFs say)
5. Confused pretending to be cool folks who belong to no denomination and think they know the bible but are completely lost when you post scripture, history or grammar
6. Finally, the really way out there Urique folks who talk in rhymes.

[OLD REGGIE]

If you cannot refute the simple claims the stratedy is to bury them with Apologetics propaganda.

For example:

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Once again Peter's "faith" failed and he was about to drown because of his failed faith.

[30] but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
[31] Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "O man of little faith, why did you doubt?"

Sadly your "spam" reply is full of half truths and untruths.

[wagglebee]

It’s a moot point anyway. Dr. E. said that the Order of Worship “is uniform throughout Presbyterian churches.” I have just posted a link from a Presbyterian church which has no Gospel reading this coming Sunday. That would indicate that while the Order of Worship is uniform, it does not require a Gospel reading.

[Cronos]

No, I have no hope of them even reading the words. If one doesn't read the Bible except as excerpts....

My aim of posting that (or rather, copying it from Markbsnr who did the hard work of finding it) is showing some things to the lurkers out here --> hopefully the lurkers will glance through it or even read it and then go search for themselves.

And the more they read scripture, history and the early fathers, the more they will realise that the Apostolic Catholic Church is ONE whether Orthodox or Catholic or Oriental or Assyrian.

[Cronos]

Thank you DV -- this is some information for those who presume we don't know scripture (and then get a rude shock):
If a Catholic attends daily Mass, just think of all the Scripture he hears. An epistle and Gospel reading EVERY DAY, plus psalms. There is also a two-year cycle to the daily readings, so you're getting over 600 selections from the Bible before the cycle repeats.

On Sundays, there's a 3-year cycle of readings from the O.T. and the New.
The priest is also expected to preach the sermon on the specific readings of the day. The priests that I have heard almost always do just that, and the homilies can run a good half-hour. This notion that Scripture is absent from the Mass or treated insignificantly is nonsense.

If a Catholic were to also pray the Liturgy of the Hours and the Office of Readings, he would have many additional texts from Scripture to read and pray over.

The Catholic Church's liturgical life is saturated with Scripture.

[Cronos]

Really? And yet, when Peter was beginning to sink, he still called out to the Lord.

Also, now English is a tricky language (not to mention Koine Greek or Aramaic) -- DV did say This faith ultimately did not fail. --> "u l t i m a t e l y" -- at the end of Peter's life when he was crucified, his faith did not fail.

English can be a tricky language, but it's grammar is not as tricky as Koine Greek (with masculine and feminine genders for inanimate objects like petros/petra)

[boatbums]

As with most protestants, you assume...

I try to leave out this kind of disrespectful speak in my posts. How would you know what I assume at all about sola scriptura since I never have been asked to define it? I think quite a few people have a distorted view of what the term means and then "assume" everyone else believes the same way. Hence, the contradictions.

Here's what I mean when I say I believe in sola scriptura, or scripture alone. I fully accept that not "everything" pertaining to our Christian walk is explicitly stated in Scripture. God has left certain things to be determined by individual liberty, conscience, leading of the Holy Spirit. However, he HAS given direct voice pertaining to major doctrines of the faith, the things we need to be clear on regarding salvation. The "Gospel" is not just whatever you want to think it is. How do I know that? Because Scripture says quite clearly in hundreds of sections, that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again as a payment of the penalty for all of our sins. That if we by faith accept this gift of grace from God we are saved from the eternal condemnation of that sin. We are made as righteous as Christ - we are found IN HIM.

We DO look to "traditions" of the early church for clarification of how Christ has revealed his truth through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Early councils helped to spell out the doctrines and are still respected. This does NOT mean that everything the "church" taught or did since then has been infallible and this is why we go to scripture to guide us into all truth. Jesus' promise that he would send the Holy Spirit for just that exact purpose, didn't he?

Now, regarding things that aren't specifically spelled out in the Bible, i.e., going to the movies, we can still use God's revealed word for guidance and we have a responsibility between us and God to have a clear conscience before him in all things. This does not preclude different groups from having their own traditions, not at all. It just means that whatever those are regarding the faith should not go against Scripture. Just as many early church fathers iterated, they wanted all their teachings to be verified by the authority that comes from God's revealed word. No man-made traditions should ever be presented as equal in authority to scripture but should be subordinate to it. That is how God has set it up, it is how he has always set it up. It has been his way, his words, his "construct" since time began. Does this help?

[Cronos]

Sadly your "spam" reply is full of half truths and untruths.

1. Which "half truths"? Just because one doesn't read the sentence or the bible in it's entirety does not make it a half-truth
2. Which untruth?
3. Can you name these half-truths and lies that you say DV's post is "full of"?

[Global2010]

Don’t know.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[OLD REGGIE]

So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent.

Peter ruled nothing. He was a participant, an important one, but a participant nonetheless.

FYI James is nowhere called a Bishop, nor is Peter. In fact the title "Bishop" is not identified to any of the Apostles.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Aww. (Blush.)

I always say if anything proves good judgment on my part, it was the decision to marry my don-o.

[Global2010]

Here is the link.

http://www.theophorus.org/creedsdoctrine.htm

[Natural Law]

Apparently, when a synapse actually fires it can appear truely brilliant.

[Deo volente]

Peter had to learn, like the other Apostles, to trust in the Lord Jesus. He was not born a saint. He had his struggles, just like you and me. The Lord did not give him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven because he was perfect. It was not a reward for his perfect faith, because at that point Peter's faith was still being perfected. It ‘failed” on the occasion of his overconfident and misguided trust in his own ability to walk on water, but it ultimately did not fail. In the end Peter was faithful, and that's all that really matters in the area of salvation, final perseverance in faith and love.

Peter had something else, something very precious; an intense and all-consuming love for, and devotion to, the Lord Jesus. Even when he sinned grievously, out of human fear, by denying the Lord three times, Peter was brought back to his senses and touched so deeply when Jesus looked at him, that he immediately went out and wept bitter tears of sorrow.

If you want to play Bible “ping pong” with a single verse that proves nothing, I'll play the game at least for now. Here are a couple of Scriptures coming back at you:

“...but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

http://biblebrowser.com/luke/22-32.htm

[15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50021.htm

[D-fendr]

I know the difference between praying to God and praying to anyone other than God.

When it comes to Catholic doctrine, apparently not. And when it comes to God...

The god of Calvinism is a god of blood feud perpetuating sin, visiting his wrath on all but those he chooses capriciously. He creates beings who hate him in the womb, then forces some to "love" him and be grateful to have been "saved" from his wrath.

This is closer to the pagan god than the God of Jesus and Christianity.

[Natural Law]

"The god of Calvinism is a god of blood feud perpetuating sin, visiting his wrath on all but those he chooses capriciously."

By any other name the GOd of Calvinism is Allah. The parallels between Mohammed and Calvin and between Islam and Calvinism are indeed striking. One need only look beyond the words taught by both men to their actions in dealing with rivals and adversaries to appreciate the sameness. The greatest irony is that if a person's salvation is predestined then the extreme methods by both Calvin and Muhammad were unnecessary, God certainly did not need their help. John Calvin's methods were akin to Muhammed's, by fear and intimidation, "by the sword".

[Jvette]

St. Peter’s faith is what sustained him and we must never forget that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Jesus prayed for Peter’s faith.

This the problem with taking verses and trying to make them stand on their own rather than seeing everything as a piece of puzzle that fits into a much bigger picture. One cannot possibly see the whole picture by looking at only a single piece.

St. Peter is so many things that it is impossible to base his significance on one single Scripture verse.

He is the Vicar of Christ, but he is also each and every believer. His story runs the gambit of Christian faith in that he can make a statement so profoundly true that even Christ declares that it must be from God and then make one that is so profoundly wrong that Jesus must correct him. Even going so far as accusing him of being Satan!

The faith and the church are only as strong as it’s weakest link. If we see the Trinity as the strongest links in the chain of faith, then we better understand that Peter’s faith is the weakest and it is upon this link that Jesus has entrusted His church. That is why He had such special words and instructions for Peter.

Peter as the rock, and his confession are not necessarily exclusive of one another. For it is God’s revelation to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah that moved Peter to say to Jesus, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” and thus gave Peter the confidence to go out into the world, proclaiming Jesus as Lord, baptizing all in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We are all subject to the same doubts and denials that Peter endured, but, we know through Peter’s later redemption and faith that the same path is open to us. We can trust that Jesus would never allow error to mislead us as He never would have allowed error to mislead Peter.

The problem is who decides what is truth and what is error.
There must be an authority. Yes, that authority is Jesus and His word. Yet, which understanding of that word are we to trust?

There can only be one narrow path, the Holy Spirit would not lead us all down individual, separate paths, therefore, there must be one authority. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit is that authority. Just as one has free will to accept the love of God and redemption through, with and by that love, one has the free will to accept the Church as authoritative.

[Deo volente]

“God has left certain things to be determined by individual liberty, conscience, leading of the Holy Spirit.”

...resulting in some 30,000 protestant denominations, many of them entangled in bitter doctrinal disputes, with more denominations arising daily.
____________________________________________________________________________

“However, he HAS given direct voice pertaining to major doctrines of the faith, the things we need to be clear on regarding salvation.”

The doctrine of the Trinity, central to the Christian faith, is nowhere spelled out in the Bible.
___________________________________________________________________________

“We DO look to “traditions” of the early church for clarification of how Christ has revealed his truth through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Early councils helped to spell out the doctrines and are still respected.”

Yet the “reformers” arbitrarily discarded the constant teaching of the early Church on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, on the sacraments, on the primacy of Peter, on the Apostolic succession, etc., teachings that were central to the life of Christians for 15 centuries. Do you still respect the teachings of the early Church on the Eucharist, etc. or do you follow the teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other assorted “reformers” who had no authority in the Apostolic line of succession?

___________________________________________________________________________

“This does not preclude different groups from having their own traditions, not at all.”

Then why deny that right to the Catholic Church? Why condemn their traditions out of hand but allow other “different groups” to have theirs?