[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
What I really want to share is a local news article about a study of why lots of Catholics aren’t going to Mass…(it’s more interesting than my lame intro):
Weird. The Pope is right, we need better Catechesis. [/quote]
Ha ha. They are all clueless, right?
Reminds me of my own introduction to Catholic Mass. (coming from a Lutheran)
So, I tag-along to Catholic Mass with my Catholic high school friends.
I take Communion because I’m a baptized, confirmed christian and entitled, right?
The fact that I wasn’t expressly invited (like they do in a Lutheran Church) struck me as an odd oversight, like slightly bad manners that I charitably ignored.
After partaking in several Masses, my friends casually inform me that I wasn’t invited to Communion ON PURPOSE. Well now, that’s rather rude. No christian hospitality at Mass? It doesn’t matter.
After a couple more Masses, I learn that it’s FORBIDDEN for non-Catholics to take Communion.
Excuse me? Who the &*#^@ are they to tell me I can’t enjoy Communion whenever it’s served? The Communion is between Christ and me alone…the priests are merely the ‘servers’.
It’s very rare that I attend a Catholic service now…only for some family event.
But I still enjoy communion at Mass and I get some sort of defiant satisfaction out of it as an added bonus. Clueless? I guess it depends on your perspective.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
What I really want to share is a local news article about a study of why lots of Catholics aren’t going to Mass…(it’s more interesting than my lame intro):
Weird. The Pope is right, we need better Catechesis. [/quote]
Ha ha. They are all clueless, right?
Reminds me of my own introduction to Catholic Mass. (coming from a Lutheran)
So, I tag-along to Catholic Mass with my Catholic high school friends.
I take Communion because I’m a baptized, confirmed christian and entitled, right?
The fact that I wasn’t expressly invited (like they do in a Lutheran Church) struck me as an odd oversight, like slightly bad manners that I charitably ignored.
After partaking in several Masses, my friends casually inform me that I wasn’t invited to Communion ON PURPOSE. Well now, that’s rather rude. No christian hospitality at Mass? It doesn’t matter.
After a couple more Masses, I learn that it’s FORBIDDEN for non-Catholics to take Communion.
Excuse me? Who the &*#^@ are they to tell me I can’t enjoy Communion whenever it’s served? The Communion is between Christ and me alone…the priests are merely the ‘servers’.
It’s very rare that I attend a Catholic service now…only for some family event.
But I still enjoy communion at Mass and I get some sort of defiant satisfaction out of it as an added bonus. Clueless? I guess it depends on your perspective.[/quote]
You feel proud for not only having disrespected something Sacred to Catholics but also committing blaspheme and desecrating the host?
You do know that Satan worshipers break into our Churches to do the same thing at their black masses?
And, no the Communion is not between you and Christ, the communion is between you, Christ, and Christ’s Body, the Church. The Priest is there to protect the sacraments foremost, not make everyone feel good because they get to have communion.
My Catholic friends certainly didn’t explain it to me with any sense of ‘gravity’.
And currently, the Catholics in my family aren’t exactly by the book either.
So, if it wasn’t/isn’t offensive to the Catholics I know, why should I be concerned?
You guys are the really the first serious Catholics I’ve met.
My real-life face-to-face experience has been with the luke-warm, former and recovering types.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
There is a difference between saying that certain texts were considered authoritative Scripture and certain texts were included in the canon. A book can be considered authoritative without being a part of a closed collection of authoritative literature to which nothing can be added or subtracted (a canon). Everything that was included in the canon was considered scriptural by the church; not everything that was considered scriptural by the church made it into the canon. There were numerous texts that the early church fathers quoted as Scripture that were later not included in the canon (1 Enoch, for example). Consequently, it is true that the Bible, i.e., the closed collection of authoritative documents, did not exist as such until relatively late.[/quote]
I understand well the concept of canon, and was not speaking to that.
Let me ask it this way-
After Paul finished writing his letter to the Ephesians was it Scripture?
When it was read in the various house churches in Ephesus, was it Scripture?
When a faithful copy of it was made and then read in another city, was it Scripture?
Just answer yes or no to these. The nuances of this issue have already been exposed, so no qualifications are needed.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
There is a difference between saying that certain texts were considered authoritative Scripture and certain texts were included in the canon. A book can be considered authoritative without being a part of a closed collection of authoritative literature to which nothing can be added or subtracted (a canon). Everything that was included in the canon was considered scriptural by the church; not everything that was considered scriptural by the church made it into the canon. There were numerous texts that the early church fathers quoted as Scripture that were later not included in the canon (1 Enoch, for example). Consequently, it is true that the Bible, i.e., the closed collection of authoritative documents, did not exist as such until relatively late.[/quote]
I understand well the concept of canon, and was not speaking to that.
Let me ask it this way-
After Paul finished writing his letter to the Ephesians was it Scripture?
When it was read in the various house churches in Ephesus, was it Scripture?
When a faithful copy of it was made and then read in another city, was it Scripture?
Just answer yes or no to these. The nuances of this issue have already been exposed, so no qualifications are needed.
Pat, you can answer too if you have interest.[/quote]
Yes.
That being said, if we found another letter of Paul’s after 2,000 years, I would argue that it too is Scripture.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:<<< You guys are the really the first serious Catholics I’ve met.
My real-life face-to-face experience has been with the luke-warm, former and recovering types.
[/quote]There’s a point I’ve been making for a couple years in here.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
If we look in the Book of Acts, would we reasonably conclude that Peter was the leader of the apostles?[/quote]
Yes…
[quote]Copied from my notebook:
Acts 1:13: Peter is first.
Acts 1:15: Peter initiates
Acts 2:14: Peter is first to speak
Acts 2:38: Peter gives first preaching
Acts 3:1,3,4: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 3:6-7: Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 5:3: Peter declares the first anathema
Acts 5:15: Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 8:20-23: Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 9:38-40: Peter is mentioned first
Acts 10:5: Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18: Peter is first to teach about salvation for all.
Acts 12:6-11: He is the first object of divine intervention
Acts 15:7-12: Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue
Acts 15:12: only after Peter speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) for the teaching.
Acts 15:13-14: Then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s teaching.[/quote]
RC tradition? I think the word you are referring to is history. History. not tradition.k[/quote]
No, I meant what I said. What is history and what is merely tradition is a big subject.
Concerning your list from Acts, Let’s note that Peter is not mentioned again after Ch 15. Yet, Paul is spoken of often. Basically after Acts 15 it’s all about Paul. Are you interested in an opinion on why this is?
Oh, since we are talking about authority, have you ever noticed that the Holy Ghost was once given by Paul. See Acts 19:16. Something Peter never did. And he raised someone from the dead too. A fact Pat wasn’t that interested in.
[/quote]
You are so wrong about this it’s not even funny. Peter and John also bestowed the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-24, esp. vs. 18). Moreover, Peter also raised someone from the dead (9:36-42). It’s also obvious why the focus shifts from Peter to Paul, and no, it has nothing to do with Paul replacing Peter or anything else. In Acts, Luke focuses on the growth of the CHURCH and the spread of the gospel; thus it begins with the gospel’s preaching among the Jews through Peter and the other apostles and then moves to the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles through Paul. There is a clear progression; Acts is not highlighting some sort of defect in Peter.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: You are so wrong about this it’s not even funny. Peter and John also bestowed the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-24, esp. vs. 18).
[/quote]Yep, missed that one. I only searched “Peter”. A lazy student has been caught.
This has already been pointed out earlier in our exchange, and I’m not disputing it.
Chris, this is what I was going to point out to you in regards to Peter’s name not appearing after Acts 15. The pattern on the preaching of the gospel was this:
…and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Act 1:8 KJV)
This is why the woman of Canaan was initially rebuffed by Jesus with this answer: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mat 15:24 KJV)
By Acts 15, the preaching of the gospel has now moved to the Gentiles, and Paul was given this work:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (Gal 2:7 KJV)
I am not arguing that Paul replaces Peter, or that Acts highlights a defect of Peter (have no idea where you got that idea). It is obvious they each have their own work. In drawing attention to the preeminence of Paul in the NT, I’m answering a hypothetical- If Peter was the leader of the Apostles, then we see him being superseded by Paul. If there was such a thing as a first pope, then Paul would’ve been the man, if we take such a man to be responsible for the practical and doctrinal development of the NT church.
And Paul was both these things. The record of the expansion of the church is the record of his church planting journeys. All of the pastoral epistles written to local congregations were written by Paul. The structure of the local congregation was prescribed by him. Even the revelation of the mystery of “Christ in you” (Col 1:27) was given to Paul. Notice his claim to fame here:
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. (Gal 1:11)
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:12)
And he did not consult with the others on it for 3 years, but began to preach “immediately” after receiving his revelation. He even calls the gospel “my gospel” in 3 places. Here is one:
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (Rom 16:25)
That’s not to say Peter’s 8 chapters aren’t important. However, his contribution to the NT cannot
compare in volume or import to Paul.
In light of all this, I cannot take seriously the claim that Peter is the rock the NT church is founded on.
Jesus was technically broke too. AND, he demonstrated His compassion for mankind’s plight by actually living that simple life. The pope is the exact opposite of Jesus. He presides over an organization that controls billions.
Excerpt:
“The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars.”[/quote]
Sorry, my eyes fail me. Did you just quote a chick tract?[/quote]
No, it’s a quote from Avro Manhattan in the article. I suppose he’s a bad dude in your book. Of course, documentation refuting something in the article is welcome.
[/quote]
Sorry, Chick publications that also prints Chick tracts. I don’t trust a man that spreads his message by hate and lies. [/quote]
I used this page because it contains a brief quote from Avro Manhattan’s book Vatican Billions, which I read about 20 years ago. The whole book is available online. He specialized in Vatican political intrigues, so he surely would be labelled anti-catholic. His wiki page suggests he is a respected author. Do you know of some documentation that proves his books contain lies? The last page of the online version of Vatican Billions with his documentation is here:
It goes without saying that you dispute his conclusions, but that does not prove falsehood. I would be interested in seeing maybe some documented statement of his that can be proven false by some other documentation.
[quote]pat wrote:And yes the church has enormous wealth. It’s also the largest charity organization in the world.
[/quote]
It certainly should then be the largest charity organization in the world. But that’s a pretty general statement. What would be telling to look at is say, how much the RC has given to Haiti since the earthquake as compared to other large corporations. I don’t have any info on this. Maybe you have interest in giving us some details.
[quote]pat wrote:
What you are in essence claiming is that after the apostles Christianity was dead until Luther came around. That would also mean the bible cannon is not a Christian book since it was the Catholic Church who assembled it in 397 AD. [/quote]
I don’t follow your reasoning at all here. How am I claiming this?[/quote]
Well, if the biblical sourcing is incorrect, then history of the church is incorrect, which means history itself was incorrect and if an incorrect church, following incorrect procedures based on incorrect notions, then no cannon assemble by such a false entity would have any value at all much less be considered a holy or divinely inspired book.
So either the church is correct, is Christian, and is accurate in it’s history and tradition, or it’s not. If it’s not, than the bible it assembled has no meaning or value, because the institution that assembled it had no knowledge, authority or divine guidance to do so.
What you got there is a good ol’ fashion catch 22.[/quote]
Yes, I see now.
You equate “church” with Roman Catholic church. To you they are one and the same. This is not true at all. The RC church as it exists today, was not the same as the church of the 1st century. What you have in the RC today is the end result of centuries of incremental changes leading you farther and farther away from what the early christians were doing.
You think there was no bible before 397 AD. However (most of) the books of the NT were already being listed as a collection much earlier, as the Muratorian fragment attests to. Were these not the Scriptures given to us by “inspiration”? To say they weren’t until the RC church okayed them is absurd.
You seem to think there weren’t any Protestants until Luther. All throughout the Dark Ages, there were groups who protested against the doctrines of the RC. You will insist they were heretics. The printing of Tyndale’s English bible merely caused the pot to boil over Pat, but it had been heating up a long time. Luther was just more of the same in his neck of the woods. He is especially famous because he was a former monk who nailed his thesis right to the church door. A gutsy monk don’t you think? He was right on- “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?” He reminds me of Savonarola. There was already a whole English bible by John de Trevisa circulating by the mid 1300s. Wycliffe relied much on these early English versions. He was more famous because he was vehemently anti RC. Take a look at The Cambridge History of the Bible for details. The ingredients were already in the pot for Wycliffe to stir. It wasn’t just limited to Germany.
In fact, what you consider church history is actually anti-church history, as it involves the persecution and torture of those christians who preferred the Scriptures alone, and it’s pure teachings.
[/quote]
There is a difference between saying that certain texts were considered authoritative Scripture and certain texts were included in the canon. A book can be considered authoritative without being a part of a closed collection of authoritative literature to which nothing can be added or subtracted (a canon). Everything that was included in the canon was considered scriptural by the church; not everything that was considered scriptural by the church made it into the canon. There were numerous texts that the early church fathers quoted as Scripture that were later not included in the canon (1 Enoch, for example). Consequently, it is true that the Bible, i.e., the closed collection of authoritative documents, did not exist as such until relatively late.[/quote]
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
There is a difference between saying that certain texts were considered authoritative Scripture and certain texts were included in the canon. A book can be considered authoritative without being a part of a closed collection of authoritative literature to which nothing can be added or subtracted (a canon). Everything that was included in the canon was considered scriptural by the church; not everything that was considered scriptural by the church made it into the canon. There were numerous texts that the early church fathers quoted as Scripture that were later not included in the canon (1 Enoch, for example). Consequently, it is true that the Bible, i.e., the closed collection of authoritative documents, did not exist as such until relatively late.[/quote]
I understand well the concept of canon, and was not speaking to that.
Let me ask it this way-
After Paul finished writing his letter to the Ephesians was it Scripture?
When it was read in the various house churches in Ephesus, was it Scripture?
When a faithful copy of it was made and then read in another city, was it Scripture?
Just answer yes or no to these. The nuances of this issue have already been exposed, so no qualifications are needed.
Pat, you can answer too if you have interest.[/quote]
I seriously doubt St. Paul had any idea that his letters would be used in as scripture. Was it scripture when he wrote it, yes, but not by intention. What makes Paul’s writings scripture is the meaning and profundity of what he said, not because he wrote it. He was writing instructions to these various churches trying to keep them all on the strait and narrow. The result was very important religious documentation. Paul did not intend to write scripture, but apparently God had different ideas.
My assertion was merely this, if you try to devalue the institution that assembled the bible cannon, then how can you trust it to be right? Why not the gospel of Judas, or various letters by the many people who wrote them then?
If you are going to trust the cannon at any level, then you have to have some degree of faith in the folks who put it together.
This is what I see and I find it confusing. I am a Christian, you are a christian. As Christians we are called to love one another, to unite despite our differences and proclaim the kingdom of Gad together. We were separated by the sins of man, and perhaps the will of God as well. But we are to transcend this to be one body in Christ, despite our differences. We as Catholics are called to love and support our protestant brothers and sisters and to unite in Christ no matter the differences.
But I see you trying to tear us down, to bring us down, make us small and invalid, to say we are not who we are and that the whole thing is a lie and that we aren’t even Christian. Is this what you have been called to do? Try an tear apart your fellow Christians point out the other’s sins and say “See, look how very bad you were and are?”, to divide and sow the seeds of hate between Christians? Between Christians.
Like it’s not hard enough to be Christian in this age, now we have to have other Christians tell us we’re bad horrible people who’s history and truth have all been a lie and suddenly this new reality, nobody has ever heard of is suddenly the truth?
My history has sins, your history has sins. Why should I not point yours out?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
My Catholic friends certainly didn’t explain it to me with any sense of ‘gravity’.
And currently, the Catholics in my family aren’t exactly by the book either.
So, if it wasn’t/isn’t offensive to the Catholics I know, why should I be concerned?
You guys are the really the first serious Catholics I’ve met.
My real-life face-to-face experience has been with the luke-warm, former and recovering types.
[/quote]
The Muslims I know eat bbq pork with me every Sunday afternoon, I’m still not going to throw a dead pig in the mosque (whether the muslims I know care or not). Sacred is sacred, doesn’t matter whether the people you know are faithful or not.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There’s a point I’ve been making for a couple years in here.
[/quote]
Your point is that you don’t know Catholics that actually practice Catholicism…yet you supposedly know what practicing Catholicism brings about. Lol. I’m glad I quoted this.
