Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father -- Two Liturgical Abuses at Once
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | July 07, 2008 | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 05/15/2014 8:58:50 PM PDT by Salvation

Monday, July 07, 2008

"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father Are Against the Rubrics (Instructions) For the Mass

 



Two liturgical abuses at once: "orans" posture and hand-holding during the Our Father

[ source ]

 


Colin B. Donovan, STL, over at the EWTN website, states that the "orans' posture in the congregation (arms outstretched in a "praying" or adoration position) is contrary to the rubrics:

The liturgical use of this position by the priest is spelled out in the rubrics (the laws governing how the Mass is said). It indicates his praying on BEHALF of us, acting as alter Christus as pastor of the flock, head of the body. . . .
It is never done by the Deacon, who does not represent the People before God but assists him who does.
Among the laity this practice began with the charismatic renewal. Used in private prayer it has worked its way into the Liturgy. It is a legitimate gesture to use when praying, as history shows, however, it is a private gesture when used in the Mass and in some cases conflicts with the system of signs which the rubrics are intended to protect. The Mass is not a private or merely human ceremony. The symbology of the actions, including such gestures, is definite and precise, and reflects the sacramental character of the Church's prayer. . . .
Our Father. The intention for lay people using the Orans position at this time is, I suppose, that we pray Our Father, and the unity of people and priest together is expressed by this common gesture of prayer. Although this gesture is not called for in the rubrics, it does at least seem, on the surface, to not be in conflict with the sacramental sign system at the point when we pray Our Father. I say on the surface, however, since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.
After Our Father. This liturgical disunity continues after the Our Father when some, though not all, who assumed the Orans position during the Our Father continue it through the balance of the prayers, until after "For thine is the kingdom etc." The rubrics provide that priest-concelebrants lower their extended hands, so that the main celebrant alone continues praying with hands extended, since he represents all, including his brother priests. So, we have the very anomalous situation that no matter how many clergy are present only one of them is praying with hands extended, accompanied by numbers of the laity.
So, while we shouldn't attribute bad will to those who honestly have felt that there was some virtue in doing this during the Mass, it is yet another case where good will can achieve the opposite of what it intends when not imbued with the truth, in this case the truth about the sacramental nature of the postures at Mass and their meaning.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, in an article about postures during the Our Father, agrees, and provides more documentation:

The Holy See has been concerned about the laity unduly aping the priest at Mass, and in the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration, an unprecedented conjunction of Vatican dicasteries wrote:

6 § 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 [i.e., "In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest."] are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

This instruction, incidentally, was approved by John Paul II in forma specifica, meaning that the pope invested it with his own authority and is binding on us with the pope's authority and not merely the authority of the authoring congregations.
Now, what gestures are proper to the priest celebrant? The orans gesture when praying on behalf of the people is certainly one of them.

An article in Adoremus Bulletin offers yet more proof that this is an abuse:
Many AB readers have been asking about the orans posture during the Our Father (orans means praying; here it refers to the gesture of praying with uplifted hands, as the priest does during various parts of the Mass).
In some dioceses in the United States, people are being told that they should adopt this gesture, though it is not a customary posture for prayer for Catholic laity. Sometimes people are told that their bishop mandates this change because the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) requires it or at least encourages it.
Thus it may be helpful to review the actual regulations on the orans posture.
Wht does the GIRM say?
First of all, nowhere in the current (2002) General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does it say that the orans posture is recommended for the congregation during the Our Father.

In GIRM 43 and 160, the paragraphs dealing with the people's posture during Mass, the only posture specified for the congregation at the Lord's Prayer is standing. It says nothing at all about what people do with their hands. This is not a change from the past.

The confusion arose among bishops in the 1990s, when some were suggesting the orans position in the ICEL Sacramentary, but not in the new Roman Missal. But even the Sacramentary revision was "specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal appeared." The article continues:

At their November 2001 meeting, the bishops discussed "adaptations" to the new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (or GIRM) of the new Missal (reported in AB February 2002). The proposal to introduce the orans posture for the people was not included even as an option in the US' "adaptations" to the GIRM.
Furthermore, the bishops did not forbid hand-holding, either, even though the BCL originally suggested this in 1995. The reason? A bishop said that hand-holding was a common practice in African-American groups and to forbid it would be considered insensitive.
Thus, in the end, all reference to any posture of the hands during the Our Father was omitted in the US-adapted GIRM. The orans posture is not only not required by the new GIRM, it is not even mentioned.
The approved US edition of the GIRM was issued in April 2003, and is accessible on the USCCB web site - http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Not on the list
The posture of the people during prayer at Mass is not one of the items in the GIRM list that bishop may change on his own authority (see GIRM 387). Thus it is not legitimate for a bishop to require people to assume the orans posture during the Our Father.
The GIRM does say that a bishop has the "responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful". He has the authority to see that practices in his diocese conform to the norms liturgical law, . . .

Holding hands during the Our Father is also clearly against the rubrics: thus should not be done on that basis alone. Catholic apologist Karl Keating wrote about this:

ORIGINS OF HAND-HOLDING
The current issue of the "Adoremus Bulletin" says this in response to a query from a priest in the Bronx:
"No gesture for the people during the Lord's Prayer is mentioned in the official documents. The late liturgist Fr. Robert Hovda promoted holding hands during this prayer, a practice he said originated in Alcoholics Anonymous. Some 'charismatic' groups took up the practice."
My long-time sense had been that hand-holding at the Our Father was an intrusion from charismaticism, but I had not been aware of the possible connection with AA. If this is the real origin of the practice, it makes it doubly odd: first, because hand-holding intrudes a false air of chumminess into the Mass (and undercuts the immediately-following sign of peace), and second, because modifications to liturgical rites ought to arise organically and not be borrowed from secular self-help groups.
Periodically, on "Catholic Answers Live" I am asked about hand-holding during Mass and explain that it is contrary to the rubrics. Usually I get follow-up e-mails from people who say, "But it's my favorite part of the Mass" or "We hold hands as a family, and it makes us feel closer."
About the latter I think, "It's good to feel close as a family, but you can hold hands at home or at the mall. The Mass has a formal structure that should be respected. That means you forgo certain things that you might do on the outside."
About the former comment I think, "If this is the high point of the Mass for you, you need to take Remedial Mass 101. The Mass is not a social event. It is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, and it is the loftiest form of prayer. It should be attended with appropriate solemnity."

* * * * *


Further comments, from interaction on the CHNI board. The words of Rick Luquette over there will be in
green (official documents indented and in regular black) :
Currently the following is found from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship:

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.
Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture?
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

Well (to use the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum), if all gestures are left open, then could congregations spontaneously decide to hug one another during the Our Father? Or how about lifting up one arm heavenward? Or all turning towards each other (i.e., the center of the church)?
The General Instructions of the Roman Missal includes the following:

390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself.

These adaptations include
The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).
Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

So it appears that at present, there is no recommended position for the hands of the faithful at the Our Father.
I should think it is obvious that it would be either hands at the side or clasped or in the hands-joined prayer position. But is not the orans position specifically prohibited, since it is imitating the posture of the priest? As Colin B. Donovan wrote (as I cited):

. . . since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.

Also, Jimmy Akin cited the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration (specifically approved by Pope John Paul II):

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

That precludes the orans position, though it itself doesn't seem to prohibit hand-holding (because the priest is not doing that at this time). What is your counter-explanation for that? What you decline to call any abuse at all is called "abuses" and "a grave abuse" by this papally-approved document. If bishops say otherwise, then the faithful Catholic still has the right to appeal to Church-wide proclamations from the Vatican, which carry more authority than bishops, and are to be followed in cases of contradiction. Some priests, however, have refused to give communion to a kneeling recipient, when the Church has specifically stated that all Catholics have a right to receive kneeling. The document above also made reference to Canon 907 from the Catholic Code of Canon Law:

Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.

Lacking specific instruction from the competent authority (the USCCB) you quote Jimmy Akin as saying holding hands during the Our Father is contrary to the rubrics. Following the link you provided to his article, he states:

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms.

This appears to be his rationale for declaring that holding hands is against the rubrics. Unfortunately, he does not give any authoritative reference for this statement. To the best of my knowledge, the definition of the word "standing" does not include "without doing anything fancy with your arms".
Let me cite him at greater length from this article:

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms. It is distinct, for example, from the orans posture, which the priest uses when he stands and prays with arms outstretched. It is also distinct from the hand-holding posture.
The latter is not expressly forbidden in liturgical law because it is one of those "Please don't eat the daisies" situations. The legislator (the pope) did not envision that anybody would try to alter the standing posture in this way. As a result, the practice is not expressly forbidden, the same way that standing on one foot and hopping up and down as an effort to get closer to God in heaven is not expressly forbidden.
In general what liturgical documents do is to say what people should be doing and not focus on what they should not be doing (though there are exceptions). To prevent "Please don't eat the daisies" situations, what the law does is prohibit things that aren't mentioned in the liturgical books. Here's the basic rule:

Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Akin is not the magisterium, of course, but he is a highly respected apologist who has written a book about rubrics in the Mass (Mass Confusion: The Do's and Don'ts of Catholic Worship; San Diego: Catholic Answers, 1999). He also regularly cites folks like canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters (who has written about liturgical confusion and need for further codification).
He also says:

Changing from standing to hand holding during the Lord's Prayer would be an alteration or addition of something provided for in the liturgical books and thus would be at variance with the law.

Sneezing is an addition not provided in the liturgical books either. Standing and hand-holding are not either/or positions; they are both/and. I can hold hands while I stand.
I can also hug, kiss, clasp my hands far above my head, make a peace sign, clench my fists, point my fingers towards the priest with arms outstretched, or straight up, pick wax out of my ear, scratch my head, comb my hair, wave, put my hands on my waist (like an outfielder in baseball) and do any number of things while standing, that are not mentioned, either. Quite obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. If these things were spontaneously introduced by the laity during Mass, then the Church has a right to more specifically define what can or can't be done (and folks should be reasonable in interpreting what "standing" means).
Isn't it common sense, anyway that "stand" means standing without implied reference to anything else (though not necessarily precluding gestures)? If one is, for example, told to stand in a courtroom, they wouldn't stand in the orans posture or hold someone's hands while standing, or put their hands on the top of their head. It would never cross their mind. So why would it be different in church?
I can assume the Orans posture while standing.
Not (or so it seems) according to Canon 907 and the high-level Instruction on Collaboration and deductively from the fact that even a deacon cannot do so. The laity can spontaneously do what a deacon cannot do?
Zenit, in a Q & A with Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum, provides the following:

Some readers asked if the U.S. bishops' vote against allowing the "orantes" posture meant that this gesture was forbidden in the United States. The bishops, in deciding not to prescribe or suggest any particular gesture during the Our Father, did not therefore proscribe any particular gesture either.
The bishops' conference decision does limit the possibility of another authority such as a pastor or even a diocesan bishop from prescribing this gesture as obligatory. But it need not constrain an individual from adopting the "orantes" posture nor, in principle, stop a couple or small group from spontaneously holding hands.
While holding hands during the Our Father is very much a novelty in the millenarian history of Catholic liturgy, the "orantes" posture, as one reader from Virginia reminds us, is as old as Christianity, is depicted in the catacombs, has always been preserved in the Eastern rites and was not reserved to the priest until after several centuries in the Latin rite -- and even then not everywhere.
The controversy regarding the use of the "orantes" posture for the Our Father appears to be confined to the English-speaking world. In many other places, it is pacifically accepted as an optional gesture which any member of the community is free to perform if so inclined.

I think this is interesting in light of the other things mentioned above. I'd sincerely like to see how Fr. McNamara harmonizes them.
So the Orans (or orantes) posture is not forbidden; it is a historical posture of the Church, and it is commonly accepted throughout the world.
It was not a common posture during Mass, according to canon lawyer Edward Peters, who observed:

While the orans position as such has a rich tradition in Jewish and even ancient Christian prayer life, there is no precedent for Catholic laity assuming the orans position in Western liturgy for at least a millennium and a half; that point alone cautions against its introduction without careful thought. Moreover — and notwithstanding the fact that few liturgical gestures are univocal per se — lay use of the orans gesture in Mass today, besides injecting gestural disunity in liturgy, could further blur the differences between lay liturgical roles and those of priests just at a time when distinctions between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood are struggling for a healthy articulation.

The previous Zenit article in the series includes the following statement from Fr. McNamara regarding the Orans/Orantes posture:

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops' conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the "American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal" last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.

Fr. McNamara adds that this posture is accepted and officially recommended in Italy, with Vatican approval.
As I have said before, I am not in favor of holding hands during the Our Father. I accept the Orans posture but would quite happily do without it. However, given that there are no instructions to the contrary (and the document quoted by Mr. Akin is intended to address a completely different issue), I see no prohibition against it.

Then I look forward to your counter-explanations of what I have reiterated above. Thanks for the discussion.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; orans; ourfather
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 721-740 next last
To: NKP_Vet

361 posted on 05/18/2014 6:52:49 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "I didn't leave the Central Oligarchy Party. It left me." - Ronaldus Magnimus, 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

I don’t constantly put down any faith. I stand up for Catholicism. When the usual suspects start their predictable Catholic Church put downs, I stand up for the faith. I tell the truth. Some on here can’t stand to hear the truth, so it’s attack the messenger as being stupid. Classic liberal MO.


362 posted on 05/18/2014 7:31:28 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I don’t constantly put down any faith.

Except your ongoing put down of Pentecostals, Baptists, Protestants in general and Luther.

All of which are continual themes of your posts on the Religion Forum - including posts on this very thread.

Oh, the irony!

363 posted on 05/18/2014 7:36:49 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "I didn't leave the Central Oligarchy Party. It left me." - Ronaldus Magnimus, 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011
Only a person whose heart is blackened with hate for the Church would see “sense” in the sedevacantist position. Protestants of the world unite. Non serviam is the order of the day.

I see. So the old ad hominem "You must have an evil heart to see this, but the feeling is mutual among many of them toward you.

Vatican Two was described by Cardinal Suenens as "the French Revolution in the Church" and Y. Congar likened it to the October (1917) Revolution in Russia.[5]...Magisterium.[7] Cardinal Felici, former secretary for the Curia and Secretary-General of the council stated that the documents of the Council are de jure, and not de fide.[8]

As to the documents themselves, there are sixteen of these, and all sixteen are consider to be "established synodally" - that is to say, agreed upon by the majority of the Fathers present at the council. These sixteen documents are entitled "Constitutions", "Decrees", and "Declarations", distinctions which in the practical order are meaningless. Despite the "pastoral" nature of the Council, two of these are labeled "dogmatic". In total then number some 739 pages of fine print and reading through them requires, as Father Houghton has remarked, "a sufficient supply of anti-soporifics". (Vatican I runs to 42 pages of large print, and the Council of Trent to 179 pages).[17] Their tone is "prolix in the extreme" and as Michael Davies states, "much of their content consists of little more than long series of the most banal truisms imaginable."[18] Yet the council is important, for it introduced into the bosom of the church a whole host of "new directions" that are bearing fruit in our days. As Father Avery Dulles said:

"Vatican II adopted a number of positions which had been enunciated by the Reformation Churches, e.g., the primacy of Scripture, the supernatural efficacy of the preached word, the priesthood of the laity, and the vernacular liturgy."[19] Cardinal Willebrands, Paul VI's legate to the World Lutheran Assembly at Evian stated in July of 1970 that:

Has not the Second Vatican council itself welcomed certain demands which, among others, were expressed by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are better expressed today than formerly? Luther gave his age a quite extraordinary lead in theology and the Christian life."

Let us not forget that almost all the changes in the post-Conciliar Church are either "blamed" on the Council, or said to derive from it as a "mandate from the Holy Spirit". Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. - Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

364 posted on 05/18/2014 7:39:46 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; aMorePerfectUnion

ROTFLOL!!!!!

Like in this thread alone?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=103#103

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=116#116

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=132#132

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=134#134

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=137#137

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=138#138

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=164#164

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=218#218

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3156607/posts?page=342#342

And the rest of your posting history tells a different story.


365 posted on 05/18/2014 7:44:13 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

It is. Thanks for the courtesy ping.

A good laugh is always a nice way to end the night.


366 posted on 05/18/2014 7:46:08 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I truly believe sometimes a person cannot see themselves objectively. I believe this is one of those times. And you posts are just from this thread. There are other threads going on also...

Christ knew Christians would need to love each other.


367 posted on 05/18/2014 7:47:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "I didn't leave the Central Oligarchy Party. It left me." - Ronaldus Magnimus, 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Awesome post! Thank you for speaking the truth.


368 posted on 05/18/2014 8:04:43 PM PDT by boatbums (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; metmom

They don’t say St. Ignatius Church, St. Mary’s Church, St. Joseph’s Church, they say St. Ignatius Catholic Church, St. Mary’s Catholic Church, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, and so on. Meaning of course each parish, named after a saint (usually) are all part of the Catholic Church.

That’s not the case for the ones metmom listed. And it seems to me the ones she listed must differ doctrinally, or else there really isn’t any reason for the different names.

Sure there are people (in the Catholic Church), ordinary and lay members, who teach and allow doctrinal error, but that’s not equivalent to the Church, as a Body, teaching or allowing error. It’s just not, I don’t know why some around here either can’t or refuse to see that difference. Just like when a finger is infected, that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire body is corrupt. The difference really is that the Catholic Church is really a body, diseased at times with “infected” members but still a body unified in will, if not action all the time.

The same can’t be said of metmom’s list, because such a list obviously doesn’t even have doctrinal unity, even if only a desire for such unity. There is no desire for any unity among the “churches” she listed, which is a scandal, IMO.

The marquees in the pictures of the church signs are kind of funny though I guess, if one is into that kind of thing.


369 posted on 05/19/2014 4:14:37 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
The DNA has mutated. It is not the same as the original DNA. New information has been added, and old information lost. It begins to make millions of copies of the mutant cells, and becomes a serious threat to the well-being of the original human organism.

You mean like apostolic succession though faced with the utter absence of any apostolic successors after Judas,
and the absence of the unique attestation of Biblical apostles,
or any prayer to anyone in Heaven by the Lord,
or of any NT pastor being tiled "priests,"
or of them dispensing the Eucharist in a NT church which revolved around it, in which the work of redemption is accomplished,
and a church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme exalted infallible popes in Rome,
and for assurance of Truth being based upon the premise. Etc .

370 posted on 05/19/2014 5:49:13 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I don’t constantly put down any faith. I stand up for Catholicism.

I don’t constantly put down Catholicism; but when the Scripture speaks... I stand up for IT.

371 posted on 05/19/2014 6:28:26 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Christ knew Christians would need to love each other.

Galatians 5:15

If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

372 posted on 05/19/2014 6:29:46 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
The same can’t be said of metmom’s list, because such a list obviously doesn’t even have doctrinal unity, even if only a desire for such unity.

Which of the differing 'doctrines' you seem to have discovered have ANY effect on a soul's salvation?

373 posted on 05/19/2014 6:31:33 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Well I guess that depends on what you think defines “necessary for the soul’s salvation”. You may say it’s just belief in and acceptance of Jesus as your savior, or maybe you think there are some more requirements, but either way, some of the listed “churches” probably don’t agree with your list of salvation requirements.

Look at that list again, in post 217. Can you honestly tell me you don’t have any serious disagreement with any of them, doctrinally speaking?

That the only reason you don’t attend one personally is because there’s not one in your area, or you don’t like the color of the building, or the people who go to the one in your area are too liberal, or some other trivial reason you don’t care for the church, but you don’t disagree with them on anything of any importance? Not one of them in that list at all?

I guess if you can honestly answer “no” that’s the end of any kind of discussion on the matter, but I’m still left wondering if there aren’t any significant differences in these “churches” then why do they separate themselves from each other?

I guess it comes down (as it always does so I don’t know why I should feel like I should be surprised) to the question, Do you think Jesus established one church or not? If so, which one is it?

Or did be establish some invisible, nebulous, unidentifiable “church” who’s only thread of commonality is “belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the savior”? Because indeed, if that’s the only thing binding the list given previously, you can drive a whole truckload of churches through that wide definition, including your favorite target the Mormons.


374 posted on 05/19/2014 7:44:13 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

That’s talking about the seven churches listed in Revelation. Surprised you didn’t get that.


375 posted on 05/19/2014 7:49:06 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Revelation 1: 20This is the secret meaning* of the seven stars you saw in my right hand, and of the seven gold lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

-----

[1:4] Seven churches in Asia: Asia refers to the Roman province of that name in western Asia Minor (modern Turkey); these representative churches are mentioned by name in Rev 1:11, and each is the recipient of a message (Rev 2:13:22). Seven is the biblical number suggesting fullness and completeness; thus the seer is writing for the whole church.

 

Revelation 1:11which said, “Write on a scroll* what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”


376 posted on 05/19/2014 8:00:56 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
You may say it’s just belief in and acceptance of Jesus as your savior, or maybe you think there are some more requirements, but either way, some of the listed “churches” probably don’t agree with your list of salvation requirements.
 
 
Strange; but I don't think that I have 'said' anything...
Can you honestly tell me you don’t have any serious disagreement with any of them, doctrinally speaking?
 
How has this come back to ME, when you are the one making the claim?
I guess...
 
I guess...
 
Or... if....
 
Seems that you do not wish to expand on the claims you've made.  That's ok with me; for my mind is made up.  The JURY, however...

377 posted on 05/19/2014 10:11:39 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
That’s talking about the seven churches listed in Revelation. Surprised you didn’t get that.

These?


Ephesus  Catholic Church,
Smyrnan  Catholic Church,
Pergamon Catholic Church,
Thyatiran Catholic Church,
Sardis  Catholic Church,
Philadelphian  Catholic Church,
and the Laodicean  Catholic Church,
.

378 posted on 05/19/2014 10:14:39 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Seven is the biblical number suggesting fullness and completeness; thus the seer is writing for the whole church.

Thus?

And you came to this CONCLUSION how?

379 posted on 05/19/2014 10:15:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

It’s right there in the Bible footnotes. Take a look. Oh, I forget...maybe it got taken out of your Bible.


380 posted on 05/19/2014 10:19:22 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 721-740 next 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