|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Preaching the gospel to Roman Catholics
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
You should have seen my face when I discovered there are Charismatic movements within the Catholic Church.
Deborah
Yes, it was a shock to me too when I discovered that as a young Christian, years ago now.
I have had some good and enjoyable conversations with RC charismatics over the years and liberal RC people as well, especially in the context of uni christian groups I've been involved in. Both strands of RC in the places where I've worked seem to have been quite prepared to open a Bible, read and talk about it, and it has led to some really good and stimulating discussions.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)
Devout reading of Scripture for at least one half-hour gains a pleniary indulgence subject to the usual conditions.
And it's things like this that help explain the different and apparently contradictory practices that occur at a local level. I reckon it's a lousy reason for reading the Bible, a bit like being paid to eat your breakfast. But then my great uncle became a Christian because he was doorknocked by Mormons who kept telling him he should read the Bible, so he did.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You.are.joking.
Why no I wasn't. Thanks for your comments, snideness excluded.
And as Rosamundi said, converts aren't the best people to talk about their previous experiences. Again, I ask: how many Catholic parishes have you visited? How many practising Catholics do you speak to? Or do you just speak to former Catholics?
And it is not just Sydney / Melbourne: I can vouch for San Jose and Dublin. Having stayed in these places for extended periods of time [Dublin especially] I saw the level of Biblical literacy of the Roman population: and it was very good. Having Roman friends in Adelaide I can say they have a great desire and love for God's Word. Not all can spew forth verses on command, neither can I: I don't see the point of it: but their knowledge of Christ's teaching was second to none.
[ 19. February 2006, 21:31: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Wow - thast true about your great uncle?!?!
fab !
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)
Devout reading of Scripture for at least one half-hour gains a pleniary indulgence subject to the usual conditions.
And it's things like this that help explain the different and apparently contradictory practices that occur at a local level.
Because of course in our beloved Anglican Communion things are so uniform.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
And as Rosamundi said, converts aren't the best people to talk about their previous experiences. Again, I ask: how many Catholic parishes have you visited? How many practising Catholics do you speak to? Or do you just speak to former Catholics?
Lost count, IC. I go with my good mate Sam the butcher to watch Kung Fu movies every couple of weeks during term time, and he and his wife are RC. Dunno if that counts but.
I know local practice varies. That's a good thing, and all I can say is, more power to the strand of RCism that does want to encourage Bible reading at lay level. I would be genuinely interested in seeing some actual statistical stuff on this, especially Australian. Maybe I will go off and check at some stage.
Emma I know. Cool eh.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
My point is that everyone is fallible, and so no-one, including myself, can claim the authority of scripture for what they think scripture means. Is that a hard point of view to understand?
Surely this is the whole point of Holy Tradition? By pooling together (as it were) the interpretations of the faithful throughout the whole Church, living and dead, hopefully some kind of consensus emerges.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
My point is that everyone is fallible, and so no-one, including myself, can claim the authority of scripture for what they think scripture means. Is that a hard point of view to understand?
Surely this is the whole point of Holy Tradition? By pooling together (as it were) the interpretations of the faithful throughout the whole Church, living and dead, hopefully some kind of consensus emerges.
Yes, and that's very important and useful and all. Anyone who disregards the accumulated wisdom of the faithful down through the ages is seriously missing out on great spiritual riches and knowledge. But Tradition is not authorative in and of itself, but only in so far as it points to the authority of scripture. Although the pooled interpretations of the whole Church is in agreement on many points, there are many issues where there is considerable disagreement - it's still fallible. Again, there is always the right of appeal back to the reality of what God has revealed through scripture.
Sola scriptura doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) "ignore everything except for scripture." Rather, it means "weigh everything up against scripture", on the grounds that it is the reliable record of God's revelation of Himself and therefore authorative.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Actually, the Venerable Bede is believed to have translated parts of the Bible into Old English, however, I don't suppose that the translation was available to the average Johnny Anglian, which is the important point.
I'll ask again what I think is a very important question. If Scripture alone may be our guide, what version do we use?
The RCC has its version. The Protestants have their myriad versions. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their version. And so on. The versions don't agree.
Now, let's assume that Scripture is infallable, or alternatively that it is of such use as to render all alternative sources of doctrine as unimportant. It then becomes very important that we know which individual translation is the correct one.
This is a major problem because I can walk into any bookshop and choose from a variety of Bibles that don't absolutely, entirely agree with eachother. And it seems to me that they must absolutely agree, given Scripture's importance.
Or else, one of those Bibles on that shelf must be correct.
So, which one is correct? Well, if I look at the individual translations, how do I know whether or not they have been translated according to the translator's own theological presuppositions? Does the translator become a sort of vector for the transmission of the Word of God? I don't hear any of my Evanglical friends arguing along those lines.
So, I suppose that I should learn NT Greek and Hebrew go back to the originals. But this doesn't get me any further. At various times, various groups have argued that the source materials used by them were the best; a good example being the Textus Receptus v. Vulgate argument.
As new source material comes to light, as it has, does that mean that the infallible Word of God, the same for all time should.... be changed?
So I conclude that sola scriptura is not really tenable. It seems to be be based on the presupposition that the absolute truth of God's message to us can be discovered despite the problems of translation of words and concepts, and despite new source material just turning up - rather like Joseph's Smith's spectacles. Tradition; the accumulated wisdom of Christians down the ages seems to me a much more sensible way of approaching the problem because its truth-claims, which while are certainly not without their own problems, at least aren't so fallacious as that of Sola Scriptura.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I concurr. I was thinking (although I don't think I wrote it in two previous posts on this thread) that when I contributed before in this discussion. Sola Scriptura to me seems to be in the eye of the beholder - and this is me speaking as a High Anglican rather than a Roman Catholic.
[ 19. February 2006, 23:22: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Caleb: quote:
Sola scriptura doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) "ignore everything except for scripture." Rather, it means "weigh everything up against scripture", on the grounds that it is the reliable record of God's revelation of Himself and therefore authorative.
But isn't it your tradition that tells you to believe that about Scripture?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is a major problem because I can walk into any bookshop and choose from a variety of Bibles that don't absolutely, entirely agree with eachother. And it seems to me that they must absolutely agree, given Scripture's importance.
Or else, one of those Bibles on that shelf must be correct.
So, which one is correct?
All the major ones are close enough. The JW one is just plain silly; "Commit it then to the flames" as David Hume would've said. And if it says on the cover that it's a paraphrase, it can be safely ignored unless it agrees with what you think.
It's enough to get a reasonable discussion going anyway, and then we can take it from there.
As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.
[ 20. February 2006, 07:13: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.
So - lets just be clear what you're saying... the RCC a) doesn't encourage people to read the bible but b) produces a version which you think is reasonable.
So... why bother going to the trouble of producing a half-decent version if you're not going to encourage people to read it?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.
Yeah. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Which major Protestant doctrine cannot be found as much (or as little) in the Clementine Vulgate as it can be in any "modern" bible? On the other hand, which Protestants have restored what they call the "Apocrypha" to their rightful place in Protestant bible versions? Demoting a text so favored that it was simply called the "church book" [liber ecclesiasticus, or short Ecclesiasticus, today known as Ben Sira(ch)], just because by adopting the counter-Christian decisions and translations of the Jewish Council of Jabneh AD 90 they were able to marginalize scripture like 2 Maccabees [prayer for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints] - do you call that intellectual integrity?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Yeah. Which major Protestant doctrine cannot be found as much (or as little) in the Clementine Vulgate as it can be in any "modern" bible? On the other hand, which Protestants have restored what they call the "Apocrypha" to their rightful place in Protestant bible versions? Demoting a text so favored that it was simply called the "church book" [liber ecclesiasticus, or short Ecclesiasticus, today known as Ben Sira(ch)], just because by adopting the counter-Christian decisions and translations of the Jewish Council of Jabneh AD 90 they were able to marginalize scripture like 2 Maccabees [prayer for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints] - do you call that intellectual integrity?
Could we have a separate discussion on the Apocrypha please ? I'd like to think about that issue and there is a lot in that paragraph I am not familiar with.
If someone could phrase an opening post question in a manner which is likely to produce replies which would be educational for an Anglican who isn't an Anglo-Catholic that would be great. I'm not even sure I know what question I want the answer to.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.
So - lets just be clear what you're saying... the RCC a) doesn't encourage people to read the bible but b) produces a version which you think is reasonable.
So... why bother going to the trouble of producing a half-decent version if you're not going to encourage people to read it?
C
Well, one theory would be that there are a lot of Roman Catholics in the world, and some of them like translating Bibles, and some of them are sticklers for accuracy and realize that the Latin Vulgate just doesn't cut the mustard.
But as to why you wouldn't then encourage people to read it—well that's my point actually. You can and should. Especially if you think the Bible really is the word of God. Apparently, according to the testimony of some on this thread, some Roman Catholics do get encouraged to read the Bible. I just wish it would happen even more, and that they would in the process drop any claim that there is a priestly class who get to do interpret it in the authorized way, and that you should listen to them instead of believing what you read.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And it's things like this that help explain the different and apparently contradictory practices that occur at a local level. I reckon it's a lousy reason for reading the Bible, a bit like being paid to eat your breakfast.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't read the Bible because "oooh, goody, I'll earn remission of the temporal punishment due for sin, subject to being free of the guilt of mortal sin and going to Confession and receiving Communion," I read the Bible because by reading the Bible I learn more about Jesus. And because Popes down the ages have encouraged the faithful to read the Bible, and if I am to remain in obedience to the Magisterium, it is not my place to wrinkle my nose and say "read the Bible? But I'm a Catholic!"
So, by all means, encourage Catholics to read the Bible, for then they are coming into closer union with Mother Church, by obeying the instructions of Popes down the ages.
Deborah
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually, the Venerable Bede is believed to have translated parts of the Bible into Old English, however, I don't suppose that the translation was available to the average Johnny Anglian, which is the important point.
This isn't quite my subject, but it's within the remit of the department I'm in, so I've picked up bits. There is a fair amount of Biblical material amongst the Old English Corpus, not all of it straight translations though. For example, there are the Genesis Poems. There is also Judith (which might not please protestants as it's deuterocanonical). I think it is probably hard to know how widely known this material was, but it is possible that Genesis A and B were recited orally at various levels. It is certainly an area I'd like to know more about.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
FWIW, here is some 2001 research by the US based Barna research group on diverse levels of religious activity by Protestants, Catholics and Mormons in the USA.
The report summary says:
quote:
Bible reading was most likely among those who attend a Pentecostal church (75%) and least likely among those who frequent the Catholic (23%), Episcopal (30%) and Lutheran (32%) churches.
Later on it says
quote:
The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants - even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God
The full statistics are presented at the bottom of the report, and the claimed sampling error is +or - 2% at the 95% sampling level.
So we can reasonably conclude that in the United States in 2001, Protestants were nearly twice as likely as Catholics to engage in regular bible reading. It would be interesting to see what the statistics looked like when liberal Protestants were excluded from the survey, but it looks like the analysis has been carried out on strictly denominational (or groups of denominational) lines.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But at heart this comprehension is a gift given by the speaker, the Holy Spirit. It's not so much irrational, therefore, as arational.
All Christians have the Holy Spirit aiding that comprehension. However, all of us having that same HS come up with radically different interpretations of Scripture. Now, either that means the HS isn't doing a very good job, or that that form of individualistic interpretation isn't His way of doing things...
And, Ricardus, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
[edit: this is in answer to a posted question that disappeared, ie "How do you know who has the holy Spirit?"
The Bible suggests 3 doctrinal tests, [name of person asking deleted].
1. If they call Jesus 'Lord' (1 Cor 12:3)
2. If they acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)
3. If they listen to the word of the apostle (1 John 4:6, "us").
There are behavioural tests too, which come down to the idea of love for those who have been born of God (1 John 5:1)
[ 20. February 2006, 10:41: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or, that some who claim to be Christians don't have the Holy Spirit.
OK - so how do you spot the difference?
Maybe you don't 'have' the HS and hence all of your criticisms are entirely erroneous.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't think you or I are in a position to judge who has and has not got the HS. As to the second of your 'doctrinal tests', who is an apostle? Again, you have a fundamental problem here: many evangelicals will interpret this as meaning the words of the NT written, whereas those who believe in Apostolic Succession will point to the nearest bishop (or group of them) as being 'the apostle'. Oh, and for the record, I would say it's a fair bet to say there will be individuals in both groups who have the HS 'aiding their comprehension'. Who's right, how and why?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Bible suggests 3 doctrinal tests, [name of person asking deleted].
1. If they call Jesus 'Lord' (1 Cor 12:3)
2. If they acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)
3. If they listen to the word of the apostle (1 John 4:6, "us").
There are behavioural tests too, which come down to the idea of love for those who have been born of God (1 John 5:1)
Riiight...
So how many RCs do you know who do not call Jesus 'Lord', do not acknowledge the incarnation and do not listen to the word of an apostle?
I can show you a whole heap of people who would say that they meet your criteria but believe entirely different things.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Precisely.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Did they? Re-read my penultimate post (where I actually meant your third test not your second ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) - who's an apostle, then?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't think you or I are in a position to judge who has and has not got the HS.
If that's true, why would the Bible writers tell us how to do it?
I don't know that the Bible is telling us to judge, rather to discern and recognise.
Mere assertion is hardly the stuff of spirituallity.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I can show you a whole heap of people who would say that they meet your criteria but believe entirely different things.
All that says is that it's tricky to work out. So what? Working out the best place in the garden to plant the banana tree is tricky, but we still manage it. Tricky doesn't mean impossible, it just means tricky.
With something as important as God and how to be right with him, it'd be worth having a go at thinking these things out wouldn't it?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't know that the Bible is telling us to judge, rather to discern and recognise.
To "discern and recognise" is what I mean by "judge".
Matt, apart from Paul ("untimely born"), an apostle has to have accompanied Jesus when he was with the disciples on earth, witnessed his resurrection and been appointed by the other apostles—Acts 1:15-26.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Yeah, but with the banana tree you know if you've got it wrong and can move it. I'm not sure this is true of God, since there seem to be millions of people with their banana trees in very different places, who are all convinced they're in just the right place.
Of course, one interpretation of this is that there are different ideal places for different banana trees, but I suspect that's not a conclusion you'd be comfortable with.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Matt, apart from Paul ("untimely born"), an apostle has to have accompanied Jesus when he was with the disciples on earth, witnessed his resurrection and been appointed by the other apostles—Acts 1:15-26.
Like I said, that's your definition, and is on all fours with what many evos would say, but if you ask a Catholic, Orthodox or (higher-church-than-you) Anglican, you'll get a rather different answer I suspect. Who's right - you or them?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All that says is that it's tricky to work out. So what? Working out the best place in the garden to plant the banana tree is tricky, but we still manage it. Tricky doesn't mean impossible, it just means tricky.
No, as Cheesy* points out it is really impossible on the criteria you have given.
I recite the Nicene Creed weekly, and I listen to my bishop on the rare occasions when he registers on my consciousness. Are you going to cede to me on the question of Calvinism? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't know that the Bible is telling us to judge, rather to discern and recognise.
To "discern and recognise" is what I mean by "judge".
There's a difference between us then. I don't see them as the same thing at all. I understand judging to involve an outward assessment whereas discerning and recognising is that which you do inwardly - it may result in judging but doesn't go so far.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All that says is that it's tricky to work out. So what? Working out the best place in the garden to plant the banana tree is tricky, but we still manage it. Tricky doesn't mean impossible, it just means tricky.
No, as Cheesy* points out it is really impossible on the criteria you have given.
Not impossible for God, who sees the heart. And we have enough information to make a provisional determination, which is all we really need for getting on with the life of faith.
quote:
I recite the Nicene Creed weekly, and I listen to my bishop on the rare occasions when he registers on my consciousness. Are you going to cede to me on the question of Calvinism?
That depends. Have you changed your mind? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
None of the three "biblical criteria" provides any basis for judging that someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit. They certainly provide some means to identify the presence of the Spirit.
I think anyone going into the business of declaring where the Spirit is not is on very dodgy, if not blasphemous, ground.
It might sound nit-picking, but I think it's critical for how we deal with other people. And it goes to the difference between "proclaiming the Gospel" to each other and sheep-stealing.
quote:
Not impossible for God, who sees the heart. And we have enough information to make a provisional determination, which is all we really need for getting on with the life of faith.
Absolutely not! I'm not God, and neither are you!!
[ 20. February 2006, 11:38: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I don't get all of this. Please forgive me - I am not implying any malice or lack of good motive on your part, Gordon. I just find it very, very odd that you can appoint yourself as evangelist to the gentiles and romans with such very very sandy foundations. You keep having to dig deeper into the sand to try and shore up your crumbling edifice. And the question I have is, what's the point?
Heck, how can I disagree with you that not enough Catholics spend time with the Scriptures? I devote at least one homily per year trying to encourage people to do so because I know so few do. My usual little ferverino is about St Jerome's dictum that "ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ". You see, "Many Catholics do not read the Bible" is not the same thing as saying "Many Catholics do not read the Bible because the Catholic Church won't let them".
And before you make the point, it's only 1 per year because there is a vast amount of stuff to get through in a year and I try to encourage rounded Christians, not bibliolaters.
This thread is headed "preaching the Gospel to Roman Catholics". Such a statement is utterly ludicrous and stupid and really best left to the nutters who cannot be taken seriously. But someone who is a validated ( for those who have recently been visiting me in hell!) clergyman of a mainline church?
Now, if your real concern, as your argument seems to have developed, is that you are worried about the level of Scriptural literacy amongst the Catholic faithful, then no worries - so are the Pope, the bishops, the priests and loads of lay Catholics. And we provide tons of resources to try and correct this. But we would prefer you to butt out - it's our pastoral responsibility, not yours.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
It's not my thread and it's not my thread title.
I am worried about the biblical literacy of anybody who doesn't read the Bible. But I am far more worried about the question of how we can be declared "not guilty" by a righteous God. On this question, the Roman church has a fundamental problem (from a historical Protestant perspective, which I hold). This basic question of how we can be right with God is answered by the Bible, and I would like Roman Catholics—and everybody really—to know what the Bible actually teaches, as opposed to what their denomination is telling them.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
No, it's not. It's answered by the Incarnation, Life, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
Gordon, what do you belive that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that is in opposition to what the Bible says?
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This basic question of how we can be right with God is answered by the Bible, and I would like Roman Catholics—and everybody really—to know what the Bible actually teaches, as opposed to what their denomination is telling them.
The question of how 'we can be right with God' is actually answered in a number of ways within the Bible. Matthew seems to think acting justly has something to do with it. Paul's view is somewhat different, although in which way depends on how one reads Paul, what one makes of 'the new perspective'. We can't avoid the hard work of doing theology by recourse to 'what the Bible says'.
And, in any case, I'm not sure that it's at all clear that 'how we can be right with God' is the 'basic' question for the Bible. It was certainly a basic question for the Reformers and Counter-reformers, whose debates continue to condition the way we approach the Bible. But personally if I were to pick one 'question' which is central to that varied collection of books called the Bible - and I'm not convinced its terribly helpful to do so - I'd say it was something along the lines of 'how have God's people experienced God as acting for them'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
All sorts of things.
But on the question of how we can be declared right by God on the final judgement, my answer (along with traditional Reformers), is that it is by grace through faith, with not even the slightest scintilla of reference to our own merit or good works. It is only through the merit of Christ, who died for me and for all who trust him.
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
However I would subscribe to the same ecumenical creeds that the Roman Catholics do. The Roman church is correct in its doctrine of God, in its Christology, pneumatology, and a lot more besides.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
Oh dear. I can't look.
Someone tell me when this is over......
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
That is a very succinct statement of a conservative protestant understanding of salvation. It is not, however, so blindingly obvious from the plain words of scripture (considered as a whole) that anyone who holds a different view or (as is the case with me) someone who could agree with your words but would have a very different understanding of what 'faith', 'merit' and 'grace' mean as well as of how divine grace and human agency co-operate in salvation, is clearly unbiblical.
[cross posted with Dyfrig]
[ 20. February 2006, 13:10: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
Oh dear. I can't look.
Someone tell me when this is over......
I'd keep watching. It seems to me that it's taken Gordo a great many pages to get to his central thesis, which is "The Catholic Church has got it wrong and people like me need to remedy the situation"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
quote:
I am worried about the biblical literacy of anybody who doesn't read the Bible.
eerrmm .... to me, that implies Catholics don't hear the Word of God .... however at every Catholic Mass (which some people attend not just weekly, but daily!) there are several scripture readings. (One OT, one psalm and one gospel reading on weekdays - the same plus a reading from the epistles on Sunday). So claiming that RCs don't hear the Word of God makes no sense.
What Catholics are are poor at, often, is the whole idea of gathering outside of a Mass, to reflect, pray and/or learn about themselves as Christians and their God. We seem to want to learn only through liturgy, which isn't great for liturgy, as it gets watered down through lack of understanding ![[Frown]](frown.gif) !
Much of this is cultural, and institutional, and this attitude is very much in decline. Karl Rahner said (in the 60s i think) that it would not be possible to be a cultural catholic in the next century (now!). People would either walk away or else make a personal decision to be in relationship with GOd. Culture would no longer sustain practise ('going to Mass').
He was right ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
Anyone i know, of my own age (mid 30s), who is choosing to 'practise their faith', is also actively struggling and developing a deeper relationship with God - be that through Alpha, CaFE, traditional prayers, charasmatic prayer groups, etc etc or - most importantly in terms of this conversation - Lectio Divina.
But to be honest, i'm always far less worried about people who are nervous of the Bible cause they haven't read it yet; than i am of people who have read it once through and who insist on using the Word of God as a crutch for their latest theory ... a little scripture is a dangerous thing !!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
Gordon, have you ever taken a peek at the Roman Catholic Catechism regarding its understanding of justification? Just wondering...
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All sorts of things.
But on the question of how we can be declared right by God on the final judgement, my answer (along with traditional Reformers), is that it is by grace through faith, with not even the slightest scintilla of reference to our own merit or good works. It is only through the merit of Christ, who died for me and for all who trust him.
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
However I would subscribe to the same ecumenical creeds that the Roman Catholics do. The Roman church is correct in its doctrine of God, in its Christology, pneumatology, and a lot more besides.
Which part of
quote:
Matthew 25:31-46
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
lends evidence to the view that there will be "not even the slightest scintilla of reference to our own merit or good works"?
And given that the Catholic view of works is in line with: quote:
Matthew 7:16-20
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
As both the above are pretty clearly in the bible, despite your assertions, I guess that someone needs to do some more bible study before pontificating on what the bible has scintillas of evidence to support.
I could just as easily say that without paying attention to the fruit of salvation (i.e. the Works), certain evangelical churches do not understand anything at all about salvation and therefore can't find it or teach others how to achieve or recognise it.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
