Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[boatbums]

Thanks, I appreciate it. You didn't offend me, though, I know from experience that it never helps to leave wrong presumptions unanswered.

[LurkingSince'98]

You forgot again - my money - my contest - my rules.....

For the Greater Glory of God

[boatbums]

Well, in that case, yes. I did not take the post seriously and chose to make fun of it instead.

That's about as close as I've ever seen to an actual apology from you. Hope springs eternal! ;o)

[LurkingSince'98]

It goes exactly to the point that the worlds hardest contest should be a slam dunk.

AMDG

[metmom]

You claim that Catholic masses have more Scripture than Protestant services, allegedly based on hearsay from alleged friends, and then you want others to do all the work to prove it true or not, when you by your own admission have never been to a Protestant service.

JR has not yet weighed in on whether he agrees to mediate this and you want us to potentially waste our time chasing down something that may not even be needed which you yourself have to invest the time in yourself.

Go pound sand.

[LurkingSince'98]

After just a little checking I am now making the assertion myself.

Catholic masses do have more scripture than protestant services.

So prove I’m wrong and Jim gets $750 of my money ....

AMDG

[daniel1212]

Catholic priests have ZERO leeway in adding or subtracting from the liturgy. Daily Mass is no different from Sunday mass in that tha priest cannot change add or subtract one word from what is printed for the liturgy of that day.

Which was my point behind comparing a standardized liturgy of one church.

Silly protestants you don’t even know that every word of a Catholic mass is printed in the daily/Sunday missal.

Some silly RCs don’t even know that some of us, as myself, were altar boys and lectors, and thus know about the standardized liturgy. Why are you protesting to me? I simply affirmed the mass was standardized.

At the very most the priest has a couple of choices of different passages to read which would not amount to 100 words if that.

But he could quote lots of texts in his short sermon, esp. if he knew it was part of a contest that would make Rome look good.

If you wanted to know exactly what your up against just look it up in the missal. The funny thing is even the fallen away Catholics didn’t bring that up lots of help and insight they are.

Yet I provided the reading for a Sunday Mass - not you. Do you read what i write or just engage in shotgun protests?

[boatbums]

Miriam is the Virgin of Israel, the very Israel of God so that in the context of Revelation 12 we see her. Israel did not bring forth Messiah except through her, for she was the humble, willing, brave, and faithful mother of God with us. No one will ever separate her from Messiah and his sheep whom she loves.

Here is that passage in Revelation 12:1-6

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

To assert that this IS specifically speaking of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, you have to accept what this passage and the rest says and the implications behind them. The woman in this passage, "cried out in pain as she was about to give birth". If this is indeed Mary, and ONLY Mary, then Roman Catholic "doctors" of the church were wrong when they insisted that Mary experienced NO pain when she gave birth to Jesus and that she remained physically a virgin, because baby Jesus passed through her birth canal like light. Additionally, and importantly, birth pains are a consequence of the sin nature as God told Eve, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children." (Gen. 3:16). So, is this Mary? Then you can't claim she didn't experience pain because she was without sin.

The woman of Revelation 12 is the nation of Israel. This woman, also, it is said of in Rev. 12:17, “And the dragon was enraged with the woman and went off to make war with the rest of her offspring.” If this is Mary, are you prepared to say that the Virgin Mary had other children? I believe it is plainly speaking of Israel as the "woman clothed with the sun and on her head a crown of twelve stars", these represent the nation of Israel's twelve tribes. The same imagery of the moon, stars, etc., can be seen in Genesis 37:5-10, which is a reference again to Israel. And it is out of the Jewish nation Israel the Messiah will be born.

[daniel1212]

Fundamentalist Baptists are not Protestants. They believe they never rebelled against the Catholic Church to "reform" their theology and religion but rather are descended from New Testament apostolic churches. All churches are always local churches and Baptist is a distinctive rather than a denomination.

I know that, but the RC challenger is not into making distinctions, as RCs count even Unitarians and Mormons as Prots.

It cannot be historically proven but solves the problem of legitimacy, which Protestants can never enjoy except as rebellious Catholics.

You mean having historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture means such is the assuredly infallible church, dissent from which is rebellion against God. Which premise means Rome cannot solve the problem of legitimacy, but others can.

we all know Protestants by definition can never be the original New Testament churches.

but we all know Protestants Roman Catholicism can never be considered the original New Testament churches. It is in a stage of critical deformation that was progressive .

[boatbums]

None of the protestants on the forum have yet to offer up any thing for Jim to judge

Did you not see this one from Alamo-girl?:

---

To: LurkingSince'98; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; Elsie; daniel1212; metmom; Jim Robinson

Concerning your challenge, I went to one sermon from Pastor Robert Morris, Gateway Church in Dallas and counting 30 verses he explored in his first sermon in the Free Indeed series.

The Scriptures he quoted include John 8:36, Mark 5:1-20; Matt 17:8, Mark 3:14-15, John 10:1, Lamentations 1:10 and 4:12, Luke 10:7-17.

There were 21 verses by my count in today's Daily Mass Readings. The Scriptures were Daniel 3:14020, 91-92, 95 and John 8:31-42.

Of course, the Protestant style is not a straight forward reading of Scriptures as I have experienced in Mass but rather a preaching/study.

Any hoot, that's one for your consideration.

786 posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:47:59 PM by Alamo-Girl

[boatbums]

Don’t ante-up, be a quitter, don’t try to prove me wrong, there are others ‘obviously not you’ who have not quit.

Ummm...doesn't someone have to FIRST agree to play the game in order to later be called a "quitter"? If I play poker and don't "ante up", I am passing on playing that hand. Quitting, on the other hand, is throwing my cards down after I anted up and got dealt, see I have a crummy hand, and fold. BIG DIFFERENCE. I hope you see that. If I don't want to join your pre-loaded game, I'm not quitting if I say I won't play.

[Alex Murphy]

After just a little checking I am now making the assertion myself. Catholic masses do have more scripture than protestant services.

ROTFL! You managed to attend every Protestant Sunday worship service conducted this year just since yesterday?

Just the day before, you were claiming that "nearly 80% of the Old and New Testaments are read at daily Mass over a period of three years."

BWA HAHAHAHAHA. Your math is off by more than two-thirds. The actual percentage is closer to 27.5%. If you attended every single Sunday Mass in two years' time, you have only heard 3.7% of the Old Testament (932 verses). The OT reading cycle repeats itself after that, so 3.7% is the maximum. If you managed to attend every Sunday mass in three years' time (the NT reading cycle), you only heard 40.8% of the New Testament (3247 verses). With 4179 verses heard, only 12.7% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by the weekly-Mass-attending Catholic.

The numbers are somewhat better for the daily mass attendee, but they're nowhere near your 80%. The daily attendee hears only 13.5% of the Old Testament (3378 verses) in the two-year cycle, and 71.5% of the New Testament (5689 verses) in the three-year cycle. Add them up, and you get 9067 verses out of 33001 verses, i.e. only 27.5% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) is heard by a daily-Mass-attending Catholic. As long as you're checking facts, you might want to check the Lectionary again.

I would be embarrassed if I were caught believing that "nearly 80% of the Bible" was really just a quarter of the Bible. Such an admission betrays a lack of exposure and familiarity with the totality of Scripture. Have you ever read the Bible cover-to-cover for yourself, LurkingSince'98?

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.
-- from the National Catholic Register article Get Cracking, Catholics!, November 19-25, 2006 Issue

The Church should combat widespread "Biblical illiteracy" among the Catholic faithful, Archbishop Eterovic said.
-- from the thread Synod to Focus on Proper Use of Scripture

...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.”
-- from the thread A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today

[LurkingSince'98]

Ok Daniel eliminate the homily from the Catholic mass that is fine with me.

Protestant services are mostly sermon whereas a 5 minute homily may not add even one line of scripture.

The Catholic mass will still win.

It is a better thing that your protestant, really .

For the a Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

Did you not read my replies to her?

[LurkingSince'98]

Ok don’t play and to quote metmom
Go pound sand.

[LurkingSince'98]

This is your typical run of the mill Catholic Mass - the whole thing, with all the Scripture chapter and verse:

and it doesn’t count the four readings Alamo-Girl mentioned.

Scripture in the order of the mass

Greeting

Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)

People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)

People: And with your spirit.

Liturgy of the Word

Penitential Rite

All: I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, (Jas 5:16)
in my thoughts and in my words (Jas 3:6)
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, (Rom. 12:16)
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.(1Thess 5:25)

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)

People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)

All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4) Christ have mercy. (1 Tim 1:2) Lord have mercy.

Gloria

All: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. (Luke 2:14)
We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory, (Rev 7:12)
Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father (Rev 19:6)
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, (2 John 3)Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; (John 1:29)
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. (Rom 8:34)
For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)
you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, (Luke 1:32)
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father, Amen (John 14:26)

THIS IS WHERE ALAMO GIRLS READINGS WENT

A Sermon on the readings follows. (2 Tim 4:1-2)

Profession of Faith

All: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Gen 14:19)
of all things visible and invisible. (Col 1:16)
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God, (Luke 1:35)
born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; (Heb 1:3)
through him all things were made. (John 1:2-3)
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 3:13)
and by the power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, (Matt 1:18)
and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:16)
he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)
He ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51)
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Col 3:1)
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (2 Tim 4:1)
and his kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33)
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, (Acts 2:17)
who proceeds from the Father and the Son, (John 14:16)
who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (Rom 12:5)
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. (Rom 6:5) Amen

Liturgy of the Eucharist

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Eccl. 3:13) It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)

People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)

People: Blessed be God forever. (Ps 68:36)

Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Heb. 12:28)

People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his holy Church. (Ps 50:23)

Priest: The Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit.
Priest: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord. (Lam 3:41)
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. (Col 3:17)
People: It is right and just. (Col 1:3)

Preface Acclamation

All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Is 6:3) Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)
Eucharistic prayer [There are four of these, based on ancient prayers of the Church. Eucharistic Prayer Two follows as an example:]

Priest: You are Holy indeed, O Lord the fount of all holiness. (2 Macc. 14:36) Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion (John 10:17-18) he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this all of you, and eat of it: For this is my body which will be given up for you. In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave the it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: For this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant. Which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this is memory of me. (Mark 14:22-25) Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.

All: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again. (1Cor 11:26)

Priest: Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, (John 6:51) giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you. Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor.10:17) Remember, Lord, your Church spread throughout the world; bring her to the fullness of charity, together with our Pope and our bishop, and all the clergy. Remember our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. (2 Macc 12:45-46) Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the apostles and with all the saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, may we merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ. (2 Thes 1:4-5) Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.

All: Amen. (Rom 11:36)

Communion Rite

The Lord’s Prayer:

All: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Matt 6:9-13)
Priest: Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days that by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. (John 17:15)
All: For the kingdom the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen

Priest: Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles; I leave you peace, my peace I give to you. (John 14:27) Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live forever and ever.

Priest: The peace of the Lord be with you always! (John 20:19)

People: And with your spirit!

[The priest then directs the people to exchange a sign, such as a handshake or a kiss, or a word of God’s peace to one another.]

Breaking of the Bread

All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace. (John 1:29)

Communion

Priest: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb. (Rev. 19:9)

People: Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed. (Matt 8:8)

[Communion is distributed to the faithful at the altar by the priest and lay ministers.]

Dismissal

Priest: Blessed be the name of the Lord. Now and forever. (Dan 2:20) May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:51) Go in peace (Luke 7:50) to love and serve the Lord. (2 Chr 35:3)[During the blessing the people make the Sign of the Cross, the traditional sign of the baptized and a public sign of their belief in the power of God.]

People: Thanks be to God. (2 Cor 9:15)

Now all you have to do is get some protestant minister to just read the bible for an hour and you are home free. But It won;’t change my contention that there is more scripture in a Catholic Mass than in any protestant service.

For the Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

the link to the Catholic Mass Scripture:

http://www.wctc.net/~mudndirt/Scripture%20in%20mass.htm

The link to an entire book about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Walk-Through-Mass-Book/dp/1935940007

For the Greater Glory of God

[boatbums]

I have better things to do than EITHER.

Can you at least admit that NOT playing isn’t “quitting”?

[boatbums]

Go ahead and pretend that partial verses, single words, MIS-interpreted passages and Apocryphal, non-scripture tidbits all qualify as "Scripture" in your little game. Anything to win this pre-loaded, presumed, pretended and prideful boast, while the true meaning of HAVING Scripture studied as a community of believers is ignored as repetitious noise. Most RCs can quote their canned responses in their sleep but do they actually meditate on God's word? Do they truly understand that they are hearing the very essence of the heart of God through His divine revelation to mankind?

I went to Mass until I was nearly an adult and if anyone asked me if I knew I was going to heaven when I died, I could only have answered, "I hope I will." Any religion that misses the whole point of grace in God's salvation economy and teaches that our personal works, deed, acts and goodness can merit eternal life in heaven with God is in no position to presumptuously assert superiority over anyone else. They have FALLEN from grace and preach an accursed gospel. No thanks. The Roman Catholic religion holds NO sway over me or anyone else who is diligently seeking to know the truth - no matter how much Scripture is supposedly spoken there. The main reason I drive my Catholic mother to mass every Sunday is the hope that the Holy Spirit will perhaps use some part of the word of God to open her eyes to the truth of the gospel of the grace of God and she will understand that she can never earn her way to heaven, but wholly trust in Jesus Christ, who loves her and died for her sins. Been praying for that for over forty years and I don't plan to stop. Nothing is impossible with God.

[Springfield Reformer]

"κεχαριτωμενη", however is different than "πληρης χαριτως" or something, that would call for the simpler translation.

Mainly because it’s taking the form of a verb rather than a noun. Otherwise it’s the same basic idea. That verbal form only occurs one other place that I am aware of:

Eph 1:6 εις επαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω

Which the KJV renders as:

“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”

So it’s the same verb (χαριτόω) and the same tense (aorist) as its companion in Luke 1:28, and could easily be rendered thus:

“To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us highly favored (or ‘graced’) in the beloved.”

While not formally in the perfect like Luke 1:28, it is aorist and therefore perfective, i.e., describing a state of completion. An event occurred, and it was a complete, simple, undivided event. The only reason to add the perfect is to suggest the past completed act has some present relevance. In Mary’s case, for example, having come to be favored in the past is relevant as explanatory of the angelic visit in the present.

(BTW, if this seems different than my first explanation of the perfect, it is. It’s been a few years, and in preparing this post I realized I hadn’t stated the nature of the perfect correctly in my earlier post. It is temporal, yes, but it is the aorist that really provides the completeness of the event; the perfect is mainly there to project the event’s relevance into the present context, such as the conversation between Gabriel and Mary.)

So here’s the consequence of all this. If Mary’s “graced” equals sinlessness from birth, then the same must be said of all believers, because the same verb and tense is used, inflected differently, yes, but only to account for the different subjects, Mary versus all believers. Now it is patently absurd to posit that all believers have been sinless from birth because of being “graced.” So it is equally untenable that the same word should have a different meaning for Mary.

I agree that simply "graced" is technically possible but it removes the poetic alliteration present in the Lucan text.

Color me dense, but how can this be? Alliteration is a technique of using similar sounds in poetic form to create pleasing auditory patterns. How can an English translation choice possibly affect Luke’s Greek alliterations? No one is suggesting changing the Greek, only understanding it differently. What am I missing here?

But all your examples are when the context is not divine grace, but indeed human favor

Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Act 7:46 [David] Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

The above are all divine favor, and they are all based on the same root χαρις. And David we know was not sinless.

So the case for special pleading fails, and any effort to prove sinlessness in Mary must look elsewhere. Luke 1:28 will not provide it.