"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father -- Two Liturgical Abuses at Once

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | July 07, 2008 | Dave Armstrong

[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.

[Elsie]

"By George; she's GOT it!" <

Yet, WITHOUT such a written and sure guide...

[Elsie]

I guess at least one person rejects SS after thoroughly thinking it through:)

Guess all you want; for I know that many think the BIBLE does NOT contain enough information to get a person saved and into Heaven.

[Elsie]

The same way I know which books are in Scripture, through Christ’s Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Oh?

Are you not taking the CHURCH's word for it?

You only 'know' what they've taught you.

You 'know' that Protestant teaching is WRONG; because that's what you've been taught.

[nikos1121]

I went to a mass in New Orleans a couple days ago. We were asked to hold hands during the Our Father. Is this wrong? Louisiana is like 99% catholic. I mean it seems pretty natural to me.

[Elsie]

A specious assertion that is easily proven false by the existence of the many books written on just that subject.

Volume is now equated to TRUTH?

[Elsie]

What does John’s first epistle say?

Whatever it 'says'; you'll show it to be WRONG!

[Elsie]

Amazing that you’d use this verse; and then cling to Rome’s teachings!

[Elsie]

That SNIPPET, as you disparagingly put it, is the ENTIRE letter!

[Elsie]

My Church, the Church of my Lord Jesus Christ, teaches that salvation comes to me by the grace of God who has so loved the world that He sent His only Son into the World so that all who believe in Him may not die but have eternal life.

This is quite true.

It's also true that your CHOSEN church teaches you that this 'grace' can ONLY be received by doing the things that IT tells you to do.

[Elsie]

What a way to dismiss the FACT that the WRITTEN word was ENOUGH - the subject we were discussing!

[Elsie]

No re-married widowers??

[bkaycee]

AND the “grace” of Rome is for the most part, spiritual power to perform the works needed to attain one owns “justification”.

Biblical saving Grace is the free unmerited favor of God, given to sinners who believe in the substitutionary atonement provided by the Son of God’s death, burial and resurrection for the remission of sin, past, present and future.

[Springfield Reformer]

Here is the full Greek of the passage in Timothy:

14 Σὺ δὲ μένε ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης, εἰδὼς παρὰ τίνος ἔμαθες,

15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

16 Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ•

17 ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος.

And just for tracking purposes, here’s the English:

(14) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

(15) 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.

(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Your comments (not necessarily in the order you gave them):

So, St. Paul is saying here, remember what I HAVE TAUGHT you and trust also in Scripture. IOW, trust both oral teaching and the written word.

And indeed there’s nothing wrong with Timothy remembering what Paul taught him. He was a living apostle, after all, and you don’t see those every day.

But what this passage does NOT demonstrate is that what Paul taught him was any different in substance from what was in the OT Scriptures, or in the apostolic writings we now have. Again, the fact that Timothy was in the unique position to have assurance of the truth directly from Paul orally is not a valid justification for claiming the general principle of an oral tradition with parallel authority to Scripture. That’s a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

That would be like arguing that the Pharisees’ rabbinic additions to the law were justified because Moses had to speak about the revelation of the law before he got it all written down. Certainly what Moses spoke of to his elders before he wrote it all down was true. But once it was written, that locked it in. Nothing from the rabbinic traditions, written or oral, could trump it, or contradict it. In any debate over the specific subject matter it dealt with, it was the ultimate authority in determining divine truth.

That, BTW, was one of Jesus’ biggest beefs with the Pharisees. Despite having a written word from God, they couldn’t leave well enough alone, and would justified their “creative” new traditions even when they conflicted (directly or indirectly) with obvious truths in the written law, because after all, they were the magisterium, entrusted by God to be the teaching class, and so they thought they had the delegated authority to do that sort of thing. Jesus told them no, they didn’t, and they hated Him for it. It’s why they worked so hard to get Him crucified.

This is why Elsie keeps bringing up all those “it is written” passages. There was a pattern of conflict between what the Jewish magisterium was cranking out versus what God had originally said. Jesus has by example shown us that the way to deal with these bad evolutions of human tradition, especially those claiming to be from God, is to evaluate them against the written word. Sola Scriptura advocates are only attempting to imitate Christ in this.

Moving on then …

In the Greek, the word used to describe Scripture is not sufficient, but profitable which are two different things.

It’s not that simple. I assume you refer to the word “ophelimos” (bolded in verse 16 of the Greek), which generally means useful, profitable, etc. I never made the argument that word means “sufficient,” and I don’t know any Protestant who makes that argument (though for our discussion I ran across a usage of the word in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War 3.68 which is more like “purpose” then “usage,” which in some sense makes the passage more readable but it would require more study to see if it would be a proper fit).

Remember I already said these debates get derailed because people get confused about what sufficiency we really are talking about. The word that comes much closer to speaking of sufficiency is “artios,” found in verse 17, and it’s derived form, “exartismenos,” (both bolded above in verse 17) both of which are used to convey the idea of the total sufficiency of the man of God for any aspect of Christian life:

Strong’s Greek #739 739 ἄρτιος [artios /ar•tee•os/] adj. From 737; TDNT 1:475; TDNTA 80; GK 787; AV translates as “perfect” once. 1 fitted. 2 complete, perfect. 2A having reference apparently to “special aptitude for given uses”.

Strong’s Greek #1822 1822 ἐξαρτίζω [exartizo /ex•ar•tid•zo/] v. From 1537 and a derivative of 739; TDNT 1:475; TDNTA 80; GK 1992; Two occurrences; AV translates as “accomplish + 1096” once, and “thoroughly furnish” once. 1 to complete, finish. 1A to furnish perfectly. 1B to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days complete).

This sufficiency is always to a purpose, the making of a man of God, and as such must of course begin with the wisdom of salvation by faith in Christ, but it must run on to the other areas mentioned, doctrine, proving error, correcting fault, and cultivating righteousness.

In fact, if you notice, the two words amplify each other. Paul appears to be intentionally using this word play to amplify the sense of total completeness he is trying to convey. And while he certainly wants Timothy to remember the truths he taught him, this completeness of preparation has as its proper grammatical referent the God-breathed Scriptures and nothing else.

Think of it this way. An old prospector who has actually been to King Solomon’s mines tells a young man, look, the mines are real, I’ve seen them myself. It’s all true. But here’s a diary, written in King Solomon own words, and in it everything you need to know to find the mines and make good use of them. And sonny I mean everything, every map, every trap, every hidden passage, every vein of ore, every piece of equipment and how to use it, it’s all there. I’m old, and when I’m gone, it’ll be up to you. But you can do this, because you have the diary.

That’s the sufficiency we’re talking about. Your caricature is not “Sola Scriptura,” it is “SoLO Scriptura,” the false idea that we would never consider extra-biblical information useful or beneficial. It grossly misrepresents us to frame it that way, which you did again here:

it does not say that one can know all things

Again, to reiterate, we do not say that Scriptures enables one to “know all things.” That man is made of nothing but high grade straw. We DO say the Scriptures contain enough information to make a complete job of producing sufficient wisdom about faith in Christ to be saved:

Consider what Paul says of Scripture’s relevance to salvation:

τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

The phrase “is able” is based on the word meaning “power,” (here dunamena) and describes Scripture as having the power to make Timothy wise (sophisai) unto (up to the level of) (eis), salvation (soterian) which is by faith in Jesus Christ.

So again, not ALL knowledge, but enough to produce salvation in Timothy. Which accords with Paul’s other comment on the Gospel message:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Note the nearly identical pattern of words here, which holds up in the Greek as well. Combining the two passages, we see that Paul understands the Scriptures as having the same power on their own as Paul does in his own preaching, the power to produce salvation. We also see that Paul in neither case is justifying a secondary stream of data different from or additional to Scripture, but instead is showing the essential harmony between the living example of his preaching with the truths already contained in Scripture.

Which gets us to another key misrepresentation of Sola Scripture. Like Paul, we do NOT see Scripture as simply words on a page. The communication of God’s message to the world isn’t some dead intellectual process. It is a living word, because it is energized by God Himself in hearts and minds of those who hear it:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick [old English “alive”], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So God’s word is alive. As such, it always accomplishes exactly what God send it out to do. Always:

Isa 55:10-11 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: (11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

And this is true. God’s word in any form will accomplish the task to which He sends it. Not everyone receives the Holy Spirit. These are the carnal hearers, as Paul says, who cannot understand spiritual things, who can know intellectually that Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, but cannot accept Jesus of Bethlehem, even though he raises the dead, because they are trapped in their carnality.

But for the man of God, one who has a heart open to the Holy Spirit of God, those Scriptures were indeed sufficient for guidance in all important matters of faith and life, as with Simeon, who anticipated the coming Christ, and no doubt was well familiar with the OT Scriptures concerning the Consolation of Israel, as was Timothy, but not as a strictly intellectual matter, but bound up with his personal faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in his life:

Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. (26) And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

Which gets us back to the typical error in understanding how we employ this passage to support the sufficiency of Scripture. We do not see 2Tim3:16 as describing only OT Scripture, because Paul, after making his point to Timothy about indeed being able to discover salvation in the then extant Scriptures, goes on to generalize the principle. He explain the “Why.” Scripture has this power, Paul is effectively saying, because it is God-breathed. He then llists the characteristics of such God-breathed writings. They have, taken as a whole (which is what Paul does), the power to lead one not only to a saving understanding of Christ, but also to successfully live the life of a Christian fully equipped for all righteousness.

BTW, your sidebar on how righteousness relates to calling, especially in Timothy’s case, is interesting, but I don’t see how it limits the scope of preparation for righteousness that is provided by Scripture. As I said before, Paul, especially in the Greek, is emphatic that said scope is absolutely comprehensive. The preparation provided by Scripture, taken as a whole, is compete. There is no equivocation here. Besides, all of our righteousness as believers is by way of calling:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And these are the same set of good works for which, Paul says, we are completely prepared by way of Scripture. No Christian can get by without these essentials, whether minister or ministered to, and they are all covered in Scripture.

Thus Scripture forms the pattern of belief. Everything taught by a minister of the Gospel must be consistent with it, or else must be rejected. This demonstrates what Protestants sometimes call the Regulative Principle, which is the idea that once God sets the pattern in divine revelation, we are not free to amend it, even with good intentions.

Consider for example the common claim that Jesus never specifically said homosexuality was wrong. Superficially, this argument may appear true. But how did Jesus approach the problem? He set the pattern for what was right, one man, married to one woman, for life. That’s the divinely established pattern. We are not allowed to alter that. Therefore, no matter how far into the future or how wild the excesses of a given age, we will always know the true pattern for human sexuality and marriage. We cannot amend it just because some specific variation was “never mentioned.” We are then defended should someone come along and purport to reveal a long held “secret” oral tradition that it’s really OK to be gay.

God is very jealous of establishing His revealed word as the pattern for our lives, especially our relationship with Him. Consider the poor sons of Aaron:

Lev 10:1-2 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. (2) And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Possibly they had “good intentions.” After all, the offering wasn’t to some false pagan deity, but to the true God. But it was not according to the word given. Therefore it was rebellion, and brought terrible consequences.

Then there’s Uzzah. I feel some sympathy for him. It was all reflex, again no doubt driven by what he thought was the excellent intention to protect the ark of God’s covenant with Israel:

2Sa 6:5-7 And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. (6) And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. (7) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

This gives new insight to why the Scriptures contain various warnings against adding to or subtracting from the word of God. It is perilous activity, to say the very least, even when the motive is “helping” God. God does not require our help. He insists instead on our obedience to the pattern he has given us in the apostolic pattern of Christian faith and life:

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

We would do well to remain faithful to what has been clearly delivered to us, leaving the risk of speculative gyrations to others. It’s not as if that will leave us empty handed. There’s enough to engage us for a lifetime in Scripture. As CS Lewis once said, it isn’t what I don’t understand in Scripture that bothers me. It’s what I DO understand that bothers me.

Peace,

SR

[editor-surveyor]

No, it was two sentences.

[editor-surveyor]

John says that sin is the transgression of Torah.

[editor-surveyor]

Here is how we know what not just the Galatians, but all of the Mediterranean congregations heard from Paul:

Heb.3

[1] Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
[2] Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
[3] For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
[4] For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
[5] And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
[6] But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
[7] Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
[8] Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
[9] When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
[10] Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
[11] So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
[12] Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
[13] But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
[14] For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
[15] While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
[16] For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
[17] But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
[18] And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
[19] So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Heb.4
[1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it
[2] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

So, since we know that the very same Gospel was preached to Paul, the Galatians, and all the rest, as was preached to Israel in the wilderness, we do know that Torah was definitely what the Galatians "heard."

.

[FourtySeven]

Okay.

Then this: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4178_security.pdf (from the Assemblies of God webpage metmom linked to in post 217)

Seems significantly different (to me) than this:

http://www.arpsynod.org/downloads/Confession%20of%20Faith.pdf

(Which is the Westminster Confession, which the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church holds to, according to the link http://arpchurch.org/documents/confession-of-faith/ which metmom provided in 217)

Specifically, chapter 18 (XVIII), paragraph 4 (IV).

To put it simply, the AOG believe salvation can be lost, while the Presbyterians (at least the ones in post 217) do not.

That’s what it seems like to me. And that, seems like a significant difference between those two groups. That’s just one example.

But I really do guess it might just be me. Maybe I’m not seeing some subtlety, some Protestant apologetic that will “explain” how what I said above is not true, which is entirely possible. But you know what? If that’s the case, I don’t want to hear it anymore from any Protestant how the Catholic Church is too “legalistic” or “complicated” or “academic” or “uses word games to explain things away without considering how they are wrong”.

Because to me, if there is some kind of “explanation” as to how the difference I indicate above is not a difference after all, that’s exactly how such an “explanation” will sound to me.

So this is where we are. Either you agree that there is a significant doctrinal difference between at least the AOG and the Presbyterians, or we are left with a situation where we just have to agree to disagree. Which is FINE by me. Which is REALLY why I simply asked you from the start, “Do you really see no differences between the “churches” metmom posted in 217?”

Because if you don’t, then our little “chat” here ends, right there, because there’s really nothing left to say if we reach that point.

[Elsie]

To put it simply, the AOG believe salvation can be lost, while the Presbyterians (at least the ones in post 217) do not.

That’s what it seems like to me. And that, seems like a significant difference between those two groups. That’s just one example.

Since there IS scripture that gives weight to BOTH the AOG folks as well as the Presbyterians; what do CATHOLICS say?

They are the ones claiming to be RIGHT.

---

"I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."

1 Corinthians 9:27

 

 

The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels

Revelation 3:5

 

[FourtySeven]

The Catholic Church teaches one’s salvation can be lost, but if we remain faithful, in a state of grace, then we can have assurance in the hope of Christ’s infinite mercy and love.

This is more similar to the AOG position than the Presbyterian, to put it in that perspective, however of course not exactly identical to either.

The main point is of course we agree with the AOG in that we teach there is no absolute assurance of salvation, with rare exceptions given by God directly (eg St Joan of Arc, who’s feast day is soon by the way May 30, she was given assurance of salvation before death), but most of us aren’t given this. In fact we are taught to remain humble and obedient lest we fall into the sin of presumption, which is presuming we are holy enough to enter heaven as we are.

[FourtySeven]

And if I may add, those two verses may appear to contradict but they don’t. Both speak of the man who endures, the virtue of enduring to the end of the race (as St Paul would put it).

The one who does, the man who is not “disqualified” according to 1 Cor 9:27, is the “victorious” in Rev 3:5.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of salvation. Not assured, if we are not victorious. Assured, if we are not disqualified by our own action, or inaction.