Replies

The source [http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm] you use is from a dissident Jesuit priest who is strongly against many of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Do you really think it is honest and ethical to use a source who is highly suspect due to being against the organization he is reporting on?

Your own site review does not establish any fabrication, but lists his Roman Catholic Lectionary as one if its strengths. And if he and his school and site is so dangerous, where is the Scriptural discipline? Show me another site that proves his numbers and calculations are specious or stop engaging in the typical RC charge of fabrication when faced with evidence that impugns the picture of Rome they seek to promote.

Remember, daniel1212, that (of course) Protestants don't have daily church services.

Irrelevant as few RCs do daily mass, and in which you still will not go through much of the Bible, while Evangelicals - which what i said Madrid was trying to mimic - go to church more and engage in much more Bible reading.

But leaving that aside, your fixation on numbers is analysis based on, pardon the expression, a crock of nonsense.

Rather, the numbers show any idea that RCs are intent on Scripture study is nonsense. Again, not only did Rome historically hinder Bible literacy among the laity, but Bible reading by RCs today is among the lowest, competing with like institutionalized Prot churches. In addition, despite using some Scripture, assurance of RC teaching is not dependent on the weight of Scriptural substantiation.

using that same logic, you would have to say that Jesus Christ Himself was a complete failure, as most of the people alive in His days of walking in the flesh in the Holyland rejected Him.

Not so, as unlike those who rejected the Lord, Rome counts and treats these nominal souls - which make of the majority - as members in life and in death. Including the Jesuit priest you spurn. And for every Ted Kennedy that she does so to, she teaches the rest that this is what her rules mean, while you present an inaccurate picture of what typifies RCs.

Well, being a lector, you did some Mass readings, just like the "Scribes" and "Pharisees" did Scriptural readings in synagogues when Jesus walked in the flesh in the Holyland.

How typical. Having vainly tried to deny the evidence that refutes your characterization of RCs, you now must resort to an ad hominem attack and liken me to the "Scribes" and "Pharisees," when in reality it is Rome which most acts like them.

As such, you should be aware that there are many more readings done during a Mass than are done during typical Protestant church services

Rather, what you are not aware of is that first, i did not say Madrid was trying to sound like a Protestant, which today is used so broadly as to include Mormons, but an evangelical. For while you are stuck with liberal members we can separate from such overall and join with those whom we share a common gospel conversion Scripture based relationship with the Lord.

Second, Bible emphasis and literacy is not based on how many texts are read in church services or in a teacxhing, but also sound exposition of it. Rather than reading a few truncated texts with a 10-12 minute homily, sometimes unrelated to what has been read, and the liberal theology that abounds in Rome, or misusing Scripture as Madrid does in order to support PTDS which is not seen in Scripture (cults do likewise), the pastor in the Baptist church i am going to spends about an hour exegeting his way through the, presently John with related texts, while a previous pastor typically went thru about 60 Scriptures in his church service.

And rather than the typical send or third place status (after the magisterium and tradition) Scripture is conveyed to have among RCs, what is conveyed in evangelical/fundamental type churches is that Scripture has primacy and it is expected that the members study on their own. And Bible teaching ministries also abound.

And you would have to be aware (if you were paying attention during Mass) that the rest of the Mass is simply saturated with Sacred Scripture

Saturated? Perhaps you can say his because the Mass is so short that its few readings and sparse commentary (optional in daily masses) seem like much, but it is not. The daily mass for today July 18 contains 9 verses of reading, which is about what my pastor reads just as a prelude to his prayer, plus 8 verses in responses and bits in other places, part of which is redundant in every Mass. Even with the rote Lord's (disciples) prayer that is not much reading, besides the superficial exegesis.

(And you would HAVE to be aware of the great reverence Catholics show to the Scriptures, unless you weren't paying attention. I'm sure you will agree that denying that would be VERY dishonest.

Absurd. You are bordering on insolence. Even your own approved notes in your official Bible dishonor Scripture by impugning its authority, while the way Catholics show great reverence show to the Scriptures is to avoid studying much of it. And it is my observation that in the Mass most manifestly go thru perfunctory professions to get the wafer, and go home, rather than the idea that RCs are like evangelicals when it comes to Scripture study.

(Remember also that statistics often just lie.

Here it is. RCs quote stats as proof when it serves their cause but faced with state multiple studies from multiple recognized sources, some even Catholic sponsored, which impugn Rome, then they say they likely lie. Sorry, but i think the lying would be if you can find any that really show the opposite, because that would be a exception.

Satan knows the Bible much better than you do daniel1212, and he could run circles around you giving Bible quotes, so don't feel too much pride there.

So Madrid is positively invoked as an example of giving Bible quotes, but if evangelicals know the Bible then they are to be compared with the devil?

Also, remember that most of the original 12 Apostles Jesus picked were NOT Scripture scholars, but mere laborers and peasants.

That they were "Scripture scholars" is exaggeration, while mere laborers and peasants is misleading, for as Jews they would be likely be able to read and taught Scripture. Even of Greek Timothy the Holy Spirit states, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 3:15) And it was not of tradition that the Lord substantiated Himself from and opened the understanding of the disciples (and not just the apostles) to, but Scripture, (Lk. 24:44,45)

And, remember too, not one of those original 12 Apostles knew one single line from the epistles of Paul when the Chruch was first formed by Jesus Christ.

Irrelevant, as Scripture is abundantly evidenced to have been the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and thus evidences and provides for writings being established as Scripture based upon their Divine qualities and attestation (thus most of Scripture was established as such by the time of Christ), as well as (according to principle) recognizing an absence of any like unto cessation.

God will not judge people based on how close they come to having Satan's superior Scriptural knowledge, and, thank God, He will not consult you when He conducts His judgments.

But God will judge disparaging Scriptural knowledge by such nasty remarks in response to the reality that the Lord and His apostles established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Have you ever seriously considered how extremely significant and sobering some of the differences between various Protestant denominations and groups really are?

Invalid. Certainly there are differences, but first, you cannot compare one particular denomination - which is what Rome effectively is - with many others, and unity among RCs is not necessary greater than any other. But the issue re unity is the basis for unity, that of Scripture being supreme versus the church being the supreme authority (sola ecclesia).

And have you ever seriously considered how extremely significant and sobering some of the differences are between those that hold to the latter, which model cults also hold to. Even the differences btwn the Latin and Byzantine rite extend to no less an issue than universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility, besides purgatory, indulgences, and the Immaculate Conception, among other things

In addition, not only do we but RCs themselves abound in things they can and do disagree in, as they must engage in interpretation even as which level a magisterial teaching falls under, and thus what manner of assent is required, and to some degree what they mean, besides things not clearly defined, including Scripture texts. .

Meanwhile, sola ecclesia cults show the greatest unity, which itself is not the goal, and comprehensive doctrinal unity has never been realized by the church. But the most essential unity of the Spirit is that of Christ in each believer and they in Christ, (Jn. 17:21) and which evangelical unity is what we do not have with RCs, as they do not have a shared conversion and consequent Scripture based relationship .

If the latter group of Protestants is right [about "once saved, always saved",], the former group of Protestants is in some deep, deep trouble, and it behooves the latter group of Protestants to strongly WARN the former group of Protestants, or the salvation of their souls may be in deep, deep jeopardy (based on those completely irreconcilable differences). Don't you agree?

More serious is whether they ever were born again, by coming to God with a broken and contrite heart and placing all their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to save them as damned + destitute sinners, and thus follow Him.

RCs are typically not even in danger of losing salvation, as they never had it, but believe they were made children of God via sprinkling of water on the basis of proxy faith, and much trust in their merit and that of their church to gain them eternal life, as extensive interaction with the will reveal. As for OSAS, the idea that one can be saved by a faith that does not effect characteristic obedience towards its Object, manifesting "things which accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) is not what Reformers taught , contrary to the typical RC straw man of sola fide, and was and is to be condemned.

That God also warns believers of having an evil heart of unbelief and making Christ of no effect, and drawing back into perdition by holding to a false gospel or impenitence willful sinning, versus holding fast the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end, (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:14,15) is also true. As is faith that God will perfect that which concerneth the believer as he walks in faith, (Ps. 138:8; 1Cor. 1:8; 11:32; Phil. 1:4; 1Thes. 5:24) and chastise them that they may repent when they do not 1Cor. 11:32; Rv. 2:4,5) And that believers may know that they now have eternal life, based upon what is written re evidences and God's faithfulness. (1Jn. 5:13) Rome allows that by special revelation it can be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself.