Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[OLD REGGIE]

Oh, yes, thank you, I am vaguely aware of the long road +Augustine took until he came to The Church. And since you hold him as a fascinating character, no doubt you agree with his works as here quoted by MArkbsnr
*********************************************************

It is difficult to read Augustine and even consider trying to be a non Catholic Christian...

Oh, Augustine was a faithful Catholic but he must be thrown under the bus (or excommunicated) by todays standards when he says the like:

In his interpretation of Matthew 16:18, St. Augustine wrote, "Because thou hast said unto me, 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock' which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' will I build my Church' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee . . . For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said,'But I am of Christ.' And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ.; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, Volume VI, St. Augustine, Sermon XXV!.1-2, p. 340)

[Mad Dawg]

Ah, yes. The famed quasi-Montanist argument that if only we had the wisdom given to those who mock and abuse us, we would thank them for their gratuitous cruelty. It is only the blindness of our sinfulness that prevents us from seeing that repeated lies and gross slanders are actually truth and love!

In the wisdom of our assailants, the way to make us trust them is to speak falsehood and claim it to be truth, to be needlessly abrasive and claim it to be needful suavity.

They seek to draw us into their kingdom of unreason and sado-masochistic evangelism by driving us away. They try to attract us by being repellent, to strengthen us by constant attack, to delight us by smashing things of beauty, to bless us with curses.

Then they congratulate themselves on their piety.

[OLD REGGIE]

So, do you think it silly to read the Gospel? In The Church we read the Gospel, OT and NT each week and read through the entire bible each year. But if you think this a silly question, well...

I think it is silly to claim you read through the entire Bible each year if you claim it is done through the Mass.

It is another story if you participate in a Bible Study exercise. If this is the case do you care to estimate what % of your congregation participates?

[Deo volente]

This “requirement” that Catholics must hear the ENTIRE Bible when attending Mass is a big red herring. That's YOUR personal judgment, and you're entitled to it, I suppose, but there's no objective ground to assert that the Mass is required to contain the entire Bible in it's readings.

You're talking apples and oranges. The Mass is not primarily a Bible study, it's the re-presentation, in an unbloody manner, of the ONE true Sacrifice, once made for all on the Cross, and renewed daily on the altar.

By the way, I've been to non-Catholic services where the sermon (which can go for 45 minutes or more) is usually devoted to just a few verses from Scripture. The preacher will expound in depth on just those few verses. I'd still like to see some hard evidence of a church where the entire Bible is read out loud during the course of its Sunday services. There's not enough time to do that, unless each service were to go on for several hours. I suppose you could cover the entire Bible in the course of a couple of years if you did that. I'm not going to do the math right now, I think someone else has already posted that.

[Running On Empty]

Priceless. Thanks

[Running On Empty]

Thanks, Deo.

[OLD REGGIE]

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

HELP! I'M DROWNING!

[Cronos]

Good, you answered that — now I’ll wait for someone who svitw considers in the same “camp” of non-Catholics to answer

[Deo volente]

A brilliant post. Perfectly stated!

[Alex Murphy]

This “requirement” that Catholics must hear the ENTIRE Bible when attending Mass is a big red herring.

See That wasn't my claim - and for the record, I don't eat fish on Fridays. All I did was ask "what do you do, personally, to read the other parts?"

Post #3679: "Do you have a personal reading program, to make up for the missing 72.5% that you don't get in Mass?"

The counter-argument you're railing against was actually made by a Catholic, who claimed I was wrong about how much of the Bible is read during Mass:

Post 3681: "I've heard this bogus accusation that catholics don't get exposed to the entire bible with an adequate refresh cycle and reject it."

It's an attitude that is referenced in these articles from Catholic sources:

Synod to Focus on Proper Use of Scripture [article from Catholic World News]
The Church should combat widespread "Biblical illiteracy" among the Catholic faithful, Archbishop Eterovic said

A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today [article from America: The National Catholic Weekly]
....The flip side of this embarrassment is the presumption among many Catholics that they “get” the Bible at Mass, along with everything else they need for their spiritual lives. The postconciliar revolution in liturgy greatly expanded the readings, with a three-year cycle in the vernacular that for the first time included Old Testament passages. Given that exposure, many think they do not need anything else. As Mr. McMahon put it, “The majority still say you go to Mass, you get your ticket punched, and that’s it for the week.”

Get Cracking, Catholics![article at the National Catholic Register]
A formative, family-friendly factoid from a recent study or survey in the news.
November 19-25, 2006 Issue
Posted 11/16/06 at 8:00 AM

According to a study released in September by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, evangelical Protestants are a whopping eight times more likely than Catholics to read the Bible on a weekly basis. Of course, the survey only looked at private Bible reading; it did not take into account the Scripture passages Catholics take in at every Mass. Still, we tip our hats to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ for their zeal for the Word of God.

[wagglebee]

Outstanding post!

[Lorica]

Great post! Thank you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

AUGUSTINE: "Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people."

Amen, Old Reggie! Too bad the RCC doesn't listen to Augustine. When Calvin went back and read him, he left the church at Rome for a better way.

[Deo volente]

I don't disagree with your point that Catholics generally should spend more time reading the Bible. No problem with that.

I do have a problem, however, with those who would say the Bible is the only rule of faith. Catholics don't believe that. We hold Sacred Tradition to be equally important. Now of course we could argue over that until kingdom come!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

grammatically correct

lol. I did take a breath, but no periods were harmed during its writing. 8~)

[Quix]

NOW NOW . . .

You should know

THAT was after the founding of the Vatican 300-400 AD

and

THAT was after they believed otherwise

and

before they believed otherwise again

which was after they believed that

and before they believed otherwise again . . .

or some such . . . Vatican magicsterical power-mongering theological whiplash can be a bit confusing.

Particularly when published by the

VATICAN-JOHN-KERRY-ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF CONVOLUTED STRETCHY THEOLOGY.

[Natural Law]

"When Calvin went back and read him, he left the church at Rome for a better way."

It wasn't Augustine that caused Calvin to leave the Church. It was petulance and the accusations of pillow-biting.

[Alex Murphy]

Cronos: The Church we read the Gospel, OT and NT each week and read through the entire bible each year.

Deo and Natural Law, ping to Cronos' post #3314.

Cronos, ping to my posts #3679, #3685, #3844, and #3870, and Natural Law's post #3681 wherein she questions the ability to hear the entire Bible, during Mass, over the course of a single year.

[don-o]

spitwad count: 1 (but a big one)

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks, y’all.

I pretty much just described what we all see.