|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: biblical inerrancy
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
and yes, without a 'priest' in the RCC/Orthodox sense, but usually led by an 'elder' as a matter of 'good order'.
What do you think "priest" means? It comes from the Greek word "presbyter" or "elder." The three-fold ministry goes back to the first or very early second century. It way predates The Devil Incarnate™ (aka Constantine).
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steve Langton, if I understand it correctly, if an Orthodox priest turns up to celebrate the Eucharist and he's the only one there, he won't celebrate the Eucharist ...
This is true. There must be at least one layperson there.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'dumb wooden' literal
Would you PLEASE PLEASE FUCKING PLEASE stop using this phrase? Pretty please? Nobody has accused you of this. You have created a straw man that you are flogging like a dead horse until it turns into a red herring. Please stop. For God's sake if not for ours.
quote:
In any case, as somebody pointed out at the time of the Reformation, Jesus can't be being too literal about the bread and wine being his body and blood when his actual body and blood are also present reclining at the table with the disciples....
And yet you believe Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. Stick to the point.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen (speaking to Steve Langton):
And as far as I can tell, you're the only one who has talked about "magic" by a priest.
This is true. It's also an insulting caricature, and borders on blasphemous in the ears of an Orthodox or Catholic.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As in, Orthodox and RCC ideas by which they accepted Constantine/Theodosius is suspect 'new shit' compared to the NT and earlier church teaching to the contrary - the old but not, I submit, 'shit'.
So by this standard the Anabaptists are right and the Orthodox and RCC are wrong. I'm quite happy with that....
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You just can't hear what Gamaliel is saying, can you? I mean he can be kind of windy but really here he's being rather concise. This is so preposterous it's hard to even take it seriously. It shows a miserable ignorance of pre-Constantinian Christian witness.
Also, go away and learn what this means: The high view of the Eucharist predates The Evil One. By at least a couple hundred years. The modernizing shit is exactly memorialism.
quote:
So in fact Vincent doesn't offer any more certainty - and arguably less - than the basic view that Jesus and the apostles in the NT, understood in the usual ways, are what we go by.
1. There is no certainty. Certainty is for mathematical proofs and logic textbook problem sets. Outside the halls of academe, certainty is an admirable but unreachable goal. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
2. "understood in the usual ways" is the very horse we're trying to unflog here. Usual to whom? To Anabaptists? Who died and made them pope?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Like the way it talks of universality in 'the Christian world' but don't notice that their adoption of Constantinianism actually shifts the definition of 'the Christian world' in a direction which in all kinds of ways doesn't help their case. And so on....
Ah, such a lovely drum.
'The Christian world' means that part of the world --physical, spiritual, intellectual, whatever-- comprised of all Christians. That definition did not change with Constantine. You may want to say that Christianity changed. It did not, except in the sense that I changed when I married my first wife. I changed from being not-married to being married. It's a relational change. You may want to say that Christianity, over the years, being married to this wench (the state), changed. Did it? In what important ways? Does it still preach that we are saved through faith in Christ? That Christ is 100% God and 100% Man and died on the cross for us? That after 3 days he rose again in accordance with the scriptures? Are any of these things new?
You may want to say that the relationship between church and state is a foundational part of the identity of the church. Where is that in Scripture? And please don't give me "render unto Caesar," if you please.
quote:
most churches seem actually to be tending towards the Anabaptist church and state view simply on rational grounds;
This is so laughable. Like you guys invented this? It's like those miserable folk song collectors who heard some old Grandma on her Appalachian porch sing some song, then took it back to the city and copyrighted it as if it were their own invention. The more evil ones then go back and sue Grandma for singing it. I don't say you go that far.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway
That makes it SO much less insulting. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
- the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it?
"Conjuration" -- you're doing it again. Your spite and hatred for people with a traditional view of the Eucharist -- a view which predates The Evil One -- couldn't be plainer. "Conjuration" means an act of "doing magic." If you're going to stop being insulting, you can't bring the insult in through the back door.
But perhaps a key word here is "JUST" because. A belittling word. Do a married couple believe they're married just because they mumbled some promises and signed a paper? Why, yes they do. Because that's what it means to get married. "Just" is a weasel-word meant to convey belittlement, but which has no meaning in and of itself.
quote:
Magic is not a good 'model' for how God deals with us
Yes. Which is why we don't use it and bristle when people like you do. So cut it out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway - the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it?
No, nor does any Roman Catholic I know, nor does any official Catholic teaching I have ever seen teach that. That's why I said you seem to be attacking a caricature of what other churches teach, not engaging with what they actually teach. (And just because a belief lends itself to caricature doesn't make it right to do so, nor does doing so strengthen ones argument.)
And in case it's not clear, it's at the "just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it" that what you say, in my opinion, goes off the rails.
You obviously were not raised Catholic.
When the priest says "This is my body.." In the climax of the mass he is literally transubstantiating so God is now literally that wafer.
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
Steve Langton is quite right.
@Mousethief. You know quite well that the evolution of the priesthood has moved far from the New Testament concept of eldership. In Catholicism, the priest is far more akin to an Old Testament priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of the people.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Steve Langton,
Regarding the derisive use of the term "magic" to apply to the eucharist. How is that different from any other claim made by Christianity?
Say the magic words and you are saved.
Say the magic words and you are forgiven.
Say the magic words and someone is healed.
Think the magic thoughts and you, too, can walk on water.
You might disagree with them*, but to say one improbable bit is any more ridiculous than another improbable bit is a massively hypocritical statement.
*Whichever them it happens to be.
Take note, sensitive folk, I am not deriding Christianity in general. Though I do wholeheartedly disrespect biblical literalism and creationism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Mousethief. You know quite well that the evolution of the priesthood has moved far from the New Testament concept of eldership. In Catholicism, the priest is far more akin to an Old Testament priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of the people.
You may not realize this but I'm not a Catholic. We don't believe in the "sacrifice of the mass." You might refer to what I said before about the antiquity of the tripartate order.
And *ALL* memoralists might refer to what I said before about the elements of Eucharist being 100% bread and 100% Jesus' body. If you believe Jesus can be 100% God and 100% human, you need to tell me how you slide that knife in there to make one possible and the other impossible. I'll even lend you the knife.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Take note, sensitive folk, I am not deriding Christianity in general.
Caught that but thanks for pointing it out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
You'll have to remind me which paragraph of the RCC Catechism says that flippant statements from priests in novels constitute the teaching of their church. Maybe if IngoB were still here he could pick it out for us. It is a big Catechism and I will admit I am mostly ignorant of it. So if you can pick out the paragraph number, which no doubt you know based on your use of this quip, I'd be grateful.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You obviously were not raised Catholic.
No, I was not, but I'm fairly familiar with Catholic teaching on this point and I stand by what I wrote.
quote:
When the priest says "This is my body.." In the climax of the mass he is literally transubstantiating so God is now literally that wafer.
Quibble—As I understand Catholic teaching, when he says "This is my body," the wafer/bread becomes in fact the Body of Christ. Not quite the same as God is that wafer. But it is not because the priest is doing "magic" and saying magic words. It is because the priest is understood to share in the priesthood of Christ, who offers his Body and Blood.
quote:
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
I'm not sure that a boast by a fictional character really amounts to much here.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
You'll have to remind me which paragraph of the RCC Catechism says that flippant statements from priests in novels constitute the teaching of their church. Maybe if IngoB were still here he could pick it out for us. It is a big Catechism and I will admit I am mostly ignorant of it. So if you can pick out the paragraph number, which no doubt you know based on your use of this quip, I'd be grateful.
PM IngoB for that one and good luck.
Yes, I know you are not Catholic neither am I any more but I do know what they teach as it is what they taught me for 17 years.
Perhaps you can enlighten us about the parallels between Orthodoxen priesthood and New Testament eldership?
[ 20. September 2016, 00:56: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[QB]
[QUOTE] I'm fairly familiar with Catholic teaching on this point
Not familiar enough obviously quote:
the priest is understood to share in the priesthood of Christ, who offers his Body and Blood.
Splitting straws. The priest is the agent of the grace as he is the recipient of Holy Orders. I've never heard that he is in the place of Christ otherwise what is the wafer? No Steve is correct. The church empowers the priest to offer the mass and his utterance over the wafer is the key ingredient.. 'magic words'. That's my understanding but hey, who's infallible?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You've seriously never heard the term alter christus?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I've never heard that he is in the place of Christ otherwise what is the wafer? No Steve is correct. The church empowers the priest to offer the mass and his utterance over the wafer is the key ingredient.. 'magic words'. That's my understanding but hey, who's infallible?
Nobody on this page, clearly. According to RCC teaching, the priest serves both as alter Christus (another Christ) and in persona Christi (in the person of Christ).
The power of the Holy Spirit is the key ingredient.
The office of "presbyter" of the New Testament became the priests of pre-schism church. Greek priests are actually still called "presvyteros." I'm not sure what you want me to say about this undisputed historical fact. Are you saying that somehow the two are different? It would then behoove you to lay out what you see are the differences.
ETA: Meo deo! What am I doing defending the RCC when we have plenty of good Catholics who can do so, if they would stop defending Trump and get over here?
[ 20. September 2016, 01:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Actually, Jamat, I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. But it takes more than telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and backing that up with a quote from a fictional character. Got anything else?
And splitting straws? No, not at all. Would you say that when Peter healed many who were sick and cast out many demons, he was doing magic with conjuring words?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Meo deo! What am I doing defending the RCC when we have plenty of good Catholics who can do so, if they would stop defending Trump and get over here?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And *ALL* memoralists might refer to what I said before about the elements of Eucharist being 100% bread and 100% Jesus' body. If you believe Jesus can be 100% God and 100% human, you need to tell me how you slide that knife in there to make one possible and the other impossible. I'll even lend you the knife.
Ok, I'll give it a try. I'm currently in the "don't know" camp; but I'll rummage in the fundie part of my mental attic.
Re God and human: that's the miracle at the heart of the Incarnation, and we can't understand it in this life.
Re bread and Jesus: It's mistaken and idolatrous to conflate Jesus with a piece of bread and a sip of wine (and drinking is wrong, anyway). Jesus is our High Priest, and we don't need anything else.
Or something like that.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
And splitting straws? No, not at all. Would you say that when Peter healed many who were sick and cast out many demons, he was doing magic with conjuring words?
Not at all Nick Tamen but come on! apples with apples.
And thanks Mousethief for that. I had not heard of Alter Christus and In persona Christi. The nuns never taught us that. I wonder how that actually works in practice.
The priest stands in the person of Christ, in the function of Christ to create Christ through magic words. Glad that is settled.
I am in you debt for the 'Orthodox' gloss. My point in bringing it up was just that what yours or the RC priests do bears little link to the New Testament definition of Elder, Pastor, presbyter or deacon. But let's not beat ourselves up as the same thing could be said of any Archdeacon, Baptist minister, Brethren Elder or Pentecostal pastor.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re God and human: that's the miracle at the heart of the Incarnation, and we can't understand it in this life.
Re bread and Jesus: It's mistaken and idolatrous to conflate Jesus with a piece of bread and a sip of wine (and drinking is wrong, anyway). Jesus is our High Priest, and we don't need anything else.
Love you GK and you know this but here's the response:
(a) it's circular. If the piece of bread is, in fact, Jesus, then it's not idolatrous to treat it as if it were Jesus;
(b) The Jews would say, in exactly the same way, that it's blasphemous to conflate Jesus with God.
(c) If we didn't "need anything else" then Jesus wouldn't have sent the Comforter.
(d) It's not about what's the least Jesus could get away with doing for us. It's about what he actually does for us. It's not about the least we need. It's about the most God gives us. Yes, Jesus could have just done this and that. But if He chooses to do all these other things for us as well, it behooves us to gratefully receive all his gifts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am in you debt for the 'Orthodox' gloss. My point in bringing it up was just that what yours or the RC priests do bears little link to the New Testament definition of Elder, Pastor, presbyter or deacon. But let's not beat ourselves up as the same thing could be said of any Archdeacon, Baptist minister, Brethren Elder or Pentecostal pastor.
The NT does not define any of those things. Thinking it does so is the source of many errors. We need to keep in mind that the NT is not an instruction manual for how to "do" church. It's primarily a record of people's memories of Jesus and the early apostles, a bunch of letters telling fucked-up churches how to un-fuck-up themselves, and the record of an acid trip. At no point does it claim to be a manual for how to do church, nor does it resemble one. The epistles assume a church that is already up and running. They don't create one or give blueprints for creating one.
[ 20. September 2016, 02:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The NT does not define any of those things. Thinking it does so is the source of many errors.
OK lets say it mentions them.
What then denoted by the use of a term 'elder' or maybe more literally overseer?
So a few facts from the text:
Timothy was commissioned by Paul to appoint elders.
Paul in his final journey to Jerusalem called for the elders of Ephesus to receive his final instructions. The term elder or overseer must denote leadership. for they had the task as Paul instructs Timothy of caring for God's people.
We are told that one who rules well be considered worthy of double honour. Perhaps that could mean money and we see in the example of Paul, that he earned his own money when he could.
We can therefore conclude or take out a few things that define New Testament leadership.
Maleness? Marriage? maturity? work ethic? Spirituality? teaching and organisational capacity.
Nothing here about celibacy though. The RC got that wrong.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nothing here about celibacy though. The RC got that wrong.
I don't believe they ever claimed the celibate priesthood was biblically based. It's not part of the definition of priest, but part of keeping the good order of the church. Which is why we have married priests and they do not -- the new rule came after the schism.
Sort of like why we haven't had polygamy any more in the church. It's not that they redefined marriage. It's that it was considered not good for us to have plural marriages, so the church forbade them. If you were in a nation that allowed them, what do you think your church leadership would say to one of your fellow churchmembers asking to take a second spouse? What reasons do you suppose they would give?
[ 20. September 2016, 04:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This actually points up a huge mistake that Protestants make when arguing with Catholics -- assuming that "that's not in the Bible" is a good argument. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is able to guide the Church to things that aren't in the Bible. The inspiration of the Spirit didn't stop at Patmos. It is ongoing.
In effect people who make the "but that's not in the Bible" argument/complaint are guilty of a sort of cessationism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This actually points up a huge mistake that Protestants make when arguing with Catholics -- assuming that "that's not in the Bible" is a good argument. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is able to guide the Church to things that aren't in the Bible. The inspiration of the Spirit didn't stop at Patmos. It is ongoing.
In effect people who make the "but that's not in the Bible" argument/complaint are guilty of a sort of cessationism.
Patronising cant!
Unbiblical perhaps,anti biblical is another matter.
Celibacy is anti biblical.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Celibacy is anti biblical.
I'm not huge on the celibacy thing, but how do you defend that statement?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Celibacy is anti biblical.
I'm not huge on the celibacy thing, but how do you defend that statement?
Good question. As I recall, Paul advised staying single if possible.
quote:
Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Celibacy is anti biblical.
I'm not huge on the celibacy thing, but how do you defend that statement?
Good question. As I recall, Paul advised staying single if possible.
quote:
Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Jamat: quote:
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
You're the one who flat out said celibacy is unbiblical without mentioning qualifications.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Jamat: quote:
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
You're the one who flat out said celibacy is unbiblical without mentioning qualifications.
Really?
Text minus context =pretext
No discussion here.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point is that there is a lot of poor catechesis in the RC Church. I've even found myself explaining RC teachings - as far as I understand them and without trying to cast value judgements - to cradle RCs.
I don't doubt that Jamat didn't come across these things from the nuns who taught him, but what Nick Tamen and MT are saying accords with what I've picked up from discussions with RC priests and laity over the years.
That's not to defend it, simply to acknowledge that this is what they teach.
If anyone is being patronising here it's neither Mousethief nor Nick Tamen.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but what I would say, as someone who isn't RC yet who increasingly inclines towards a more 'sacramental' and less 'memorialist' position on the eucharist, is that the RCC can offer a somewhat 'over-realised' and crude presentation of these matters.
This doesn't simply apply at the 'popular devotional' level but even someone very erudite and sophisticated like IngoB would talk about the Mass as if it were 'magic'. Indeed, I remember a lengthy thread at one time where IngoB was arguing that the RCC was capable of performing 'true' magic and that all other attempts and magical practices - wheresoe'er they be found - were somehow poor imitations.
I could follow his logic as it flowed from the trajectory of his thinking which placed the RCC as the Pillar and Ground of Truth as it were and at the centre of everything ... but I'm sure that there are plenty of RCs who would have raised eyebrows at some of his assertions.
Whatever the case, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that there are plenty of RCs who do approach the sacraments as if they are 'magical' or 'quasi-magical' in some way but as far as I can make out that's a position that ratchets RC teaching up a few notches from where it tends to lie.
As for the Orthodox, well, I've come across one or two who seem to treat the sacraments in a 'magical' kind of way - in the broadest sense - but most of the Orthodoxen I know would say, 'the sacraments aren't magic you know.'
I'm no expert but I suspect that there's a kind of reverse fundamentalism going on in instances where people overly 'magicify' (to coin a term) the sacraments - a kind of equal and opposite tendency to the kind of extreme conservative biblical fundamentalism we find in some Protestant evangelical circles.
In my experience, some of those who most strongly denounce the RCC and other more sacramental churches for 'superstition' and 'magical' practices have their own versions right under their noses which they don't recognise as such.
We could parse it this way:
My particular religious practice is Spirit-led and biblical.
Your particular religious practice of which I heartily disapprove (or fail to understand) is superstitious and unbiblical ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Jamat,
Not in the Bible =\= anti-biblical.
An assertion utttered with no rationale is worthless. The wind created by its pronouncement has the weight of wind from another orifice.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
And splitting straws? No, not at all. Would you say that when Peter healed many who were sick and cast out many demons, he was doing magic with conjuring words?
Not at all Nick Tamen but come on! apples with apples.
It is apples with apples, Jamat. Was he doing magic or was he acting in the name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit? And if it was the latter, but the priest at Mass is doing magic, then what is your criteria for distinguishing magic from acting in the name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is that there is a lot of poor catechesis in the RC Church.
Though to be fair, it is hardly alone in that regard.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This doesn't simply apply at the 'popular devotional' level but even someone very erudite and sophisticated like IngoB would talk about the Mass as if it were 'magic'. Indeed, I remember a lengthy thread at one time where IngoB was arguing that the RCC was capable of performing 'true' magic and that all other attempts and magical practices - wheresoe'er they be found - were somehow poor imitations.
A bit like Narnia's "Deep Magic" perhaps?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Jamat: quote:
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
You're the one who flat out said celibacy is unbiblical without mentioning qualifications.
Really?
Text minus context =pretext
No discussion here.
Huh? We're not talking about text, we're talking about your LACK of text. But you're right, there is no discussion here. Just not in the way you think.
"Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by others, some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven."
If I'm not mistaken, this verse is often taken to refer, not to self-surgery, but to forsaking marriage to serve God. It's even translated that way in some translations.
Catholic priests know what they're getting into before they sign. If they choose to be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom, they have made that choice. Nobody has made them "eunuchs." They have made themselves "eunuchs" by taking the job. It's not like they sign the papers and then the bishop says, "Oh by the way, you can't get married or have sex! Bwahahahahha!" The candidate knows the conditions of employment.
You might as well argue that I didn't realize when I took the long-haul trucking job that I'd be away from my wife and family for days at a time. Uh, yeah, that's what long-haul trucking is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be fair, lilBuddha, I quite understand how some cradle-RCs react against their upbringing and gravitate towards more conservative or evangelical forms of Protestantism.
I used to belong to a Baptist church where perhaps a sixth of the congregation had been brought up RC. Many of them had undergone an evangelical conversion at university or elsewhere. The level to which they disparaged their former affiliation and RC background varied a fair bit. The same applies, of course, with people who convert in the opposite direction.
The mileage varies of course.
As far as Jamat's hermeneutic goes, he simply seems to be using what would be considered a standard hermeneutic in Protestant evangelical circles. It's one I recognise, even though I no longer think in such terms.
I s'pose my take these days would be, 'Well, that's fine as far as it goes, but there are other factors to take into account ...'
We are none of us dealing with texts in isolation nor are we dealing with texts that are magically self-interpreting in some special way - although I do retain a 'high' view of scriptural interpretation.
One of the ironies, of course, is that whilst many very conservative evangelicals tend to sneer or scoff at what they see as 'magical' elements in the RC Mass or a sacramental approach more generally, they can often have a similar view of their ability to interpret the scriptures. 'I didn't understand this verse but suddenly the Holy Spirit helped me to see that ... ' yadda yadda ...
Of course, not all evangelicals are 'illuminists' in that sense, but on the whole they tend to down-play, to a greater or lesser extent, the role that tradition and community plays in the way we approach and interpret texts.
I can understand why they do that, of course, and it's all in reaction to what we might consider the 'excesses' of Rome ... but one could argue that they throw out the baby with the bathwater and run to the opposite extreme ... either a 'Paper Pope' or every believer their own Pope ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Nick Tamen - oh yes, indeed, the RCs are by no means alone in that regard.
Don't get me started but I think that poor catechesis applies right across the board.
Not that I've personally 'arrived' catechetically, of course - I need as much catechesis as anyone else. We all do.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, fair is the observation that ridicule of the practices of others often has less to do with reason than tribalism and self-justification. Not that there are no points to discuss and debate, but that reason is not always the motivation for criticism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I made it a point, after moving from Episcopalianism to Orthodoxy, not to badmouth my former church. Mostly because I'm morally superior to most intra-Christian pilgrims, but also because on the whole my sojourn in TEC was a very positive experience both psychologically/emotionally and theologically/spiritually.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly because I'm morally superior to most intra-Christian pilgrims.
REALLY?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly because I'm morally superior to most intra-Christian pilgrims.
REALLY?
You didn't know that? How could he not be morally superior with that post count? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How can Thieving Rodents be morally superior ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, I do wish more intra-church pilgrims would take a leaf out of MT's book in that respect.
I don't think I've seen MT bad-mouth Episcopalians but I've certainly seen him bad-mouth more fundie forms of Western Christianity - but then, I do that too ...
Meanwhile, I'm sure you're right, lilBuddha that the motives of those who carp at theological positions other than their own aren't driven purely by theological considerations but much as I would discourage such a thing, I think we can all be guilty of such things.
In the case of Jamat and his views towards his former affiliation, I don't particularly like his tone but I can understand why he might adopt such a stance, particularly if he feels that there were aspects of the Christian faith the nuns didn't communicate to him adequately ...
'You never told me THAT ...!'
That's certainly the impression I got from RC converts to evangelicalism I knew back in the day.
Part of the issue, I think, is that evangelicalism tends to give a more immediate 'hit' than the RCC tends to ... if I can put it as bluntly as that.
With more sacramental forms of Christianity they deliver a slow-burn. You absorb the way of doing things and pick things up by osmosis - or not - depending on the degree to which you engage with them - and it would be easy to let them wash over you.
Whereas, putting it crudely, in evangelical forms of Protestantism the presentation is more 'up-front' in a different kind of way - and I'm not necessarily thinking of emotional appeals and altar-calls and so on.
I'm picking my words carefully as I don't intend to imply any value judgements on either of these traditions per se.
The same happens in reverse. I know converts to Roman Catholicism or to Orthodoxy who disparage their former affiliations on the grounds of, 'They never told me this or that or the other ...' or 'They had no understanding of X, Y, Z ...'
I can certainly see the appeal of evangelicalism to nominal RCs or people who, for whatever reason, have become tied up in the external aspects of whatever religious affiliation they have without necessarily getting to the 'heart' of it or having a clear explanation of what it is they are actually supposed to teach or believe.
On one level, I actually think that evangelicalism does a good job in that respect - it cuts to the chase and to the nub of things - 'repent and believe the Gospel.' It's got a prophetic voice in that respect.
However, it can very quickly dislocate itself from the broad thrust of the 'Grand Tradition' as it were and lose itself in subjectivity, overly simplistic positions and even a kind of glib easy-believism that is just as bad as the nominal one finds across the more historic Churches ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed there are many Catholics who are badly catechised.Most people have only a passing acquaintance with the particular doctrines of a faith which ahs been passed on to them.
There is really little difference between those who have some connection with the Catholic form of Christianity,or the Orthodox form of Christianity or the Anglican form of Christianity or indeed many of the strands of historic Protestantism.
It is much the same in teaching in non-religious subjects.Many people,in fact probably most of us ,have little understanding of what teachers have talked about and what we have learned and thought we understood may not at all be what the teacher was trying to get across.
We all have bits and pieces which we remember and which we may go into more deeply later in life.
Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was made two thousand years ago and since then the Christian Church has had the commission to go out and tell the whole world about it.Looking around us today one can't be too sure that they have made a good job of it.
Catholics believe,(and I'm sure that many other Christians do so also) that in spite of our many imperfections we still have the duty to announce the Good News of Jesus to others.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is NOT magic or even quasi-magical and this in spite of the fact that it may sometimes be misportrayed as such.
The Catholic catechism has the following to say about the Eucharist.
1360 the eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all His benefits,for all that He has accomplished through creation,redemption and sanctification...
1361 the eucharist is a sacrifice of praise possible only through Christ who unites the faithful to his person,to his praise and to his intercession,so that this sacrifice of praise is offered THROUGH Christ and WITH Christ and IN Christ
1362 The Eucharist is a memorial of Christ's Passover,the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice....
1363 in the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely a recollection of past events but they become real and present.This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: everytime Passover is celebrated the Exodus events are made present to the memory of the believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
1364 when the Church celebrates the eucharist,she commemorates Christ's Passover,and it is made present.
1365 in the eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the Cross and the very blood which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Now not from the Catechism of the Catholic Church - one person's idea of what is holy and good is another person's idea of mumbo-jumbo.As human beings we have to live with this,trying,if possible to understand others.
On a recent thread elsewhere we had a denigration of Buddhists.I know little really about Buddhists.
I can easily accept that certain representatives of the Buddhist faith can appear to act in an unscrupulous manner,because I have often seen those who claim to represent the Christian faith act similarly.
I would,however, not try to believe that there is something intrinsically evil with the Buddhist faith,no more than I would do so for the Christian faith in its different and differing manifestations.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I don't think I've seen MT bad-mouth Episcopalians but I've certainly seen him bad-mouth more fundie forms of Western Christianity - but then, I do that too ...
That encapsulates what the kind of priggish superiority that totally rubs fur the wrong way.
"Hey, bud you're just so wrong but I've been there and now I'm much more nuanced" kind of attitude. "There, there little bro, you'll make it one day to the insightful heights of post evangelical insight."
Stuff that for a game of cowboys!
As for the Catholic church, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That particular leopard will not and has not changed in any essential. Just calling a spade a digging stick will not change what is claimed for the mass. The mass claims to be a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on calvary. What happened to the scriptural statement in Hebrews that he died once for all, never to die again? No need to re-enact anything.
Regarding my no discussion comment to Lydda Rose. The text from 1 Corinthians quoting Pauls words on sexuality were what I thought was under discussion. There he is at pains to not forbid marriage while proclaiming the preference for continence. So on the basis of that, how is forbidding marriage to clergy not anti-biblical?
And while we are on the topic of anti biblical, I understand the use of aids to worship, statues, icons etc to be totally unbiblical. Find me rosary beads or candles in the New testament? Church practice that is unscriptural no matter how traditional is not justified by its traditional nature.
And finally, My outburst on this thread is that pretty well every comment is liberal or left leaning here and I have a lot of sympathy with Steve Langton and don't like seeing views I essentially agree with hung out to be pilloried.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whatever the case, I think if we are going to reject one form of Christianity in favour of another, I think we have to be clear about what we are actually rejecting.
No disrespect to Buddhists, but I heard an Orthodox priest observe at a conference recently how when people say to him, 'I left Sunday school at the age of 10 and now I'm exploring Buddhism, it's so wise ...' he says to them, 'Well, you rejected a 10 year-old's version of Christianity and are now looking at a 30 year old's version of Buddhism. Why not look at a 30 year old's version of Christianity first?'
If that sounds unduly partisan, I've heard Buddhist monks say a similar thing about those who like to mix and match Buddhism and Christianity. They'd rather people explored the depths of their own tradition rather than cherry-pick from several.
I have issues with aspects of Rome, of course, but I also find that some of those who cross the Tiber into Protestant evangelicalism - but by no means all - can have a rather simplistic view of what the RCC teaches. But then, so do many RCs who remain within the fold.
That said, I've met many wise and well-informed RCs who certainly know their stuff.
We can find nominalism on the one hand or forms of fundamentalism on the other across all Christian confessions.
It all depends on how tightly we ratchet things up.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I don't think I've seen MT bad-mouth Episcopalians but I've certainly seen him bad-mouth more fundie forms of Western Christianity - but then, I do that too ...
That encapsulates what the kind of priggish superiority that totally rubs fur the wrong way.
"Hey, bud you're just so wrong but I've been there and now I'm much more nuanced" kind of attitude. "There, there little bro, you'll make it one day to the insightful heights of post evangelical insight."
Stuff that for a game of cowboys!
As for the Catholic church, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That particular leopard will not and has not changed in any essential.
I will send you the bill for a new irony meter, as mine is now well and truly broken.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cross-posted with Jamat ...
Bluntly, if both you and Steve Langton want to avoid being 'patronised' and pilloried, then I suggest you check your facts rather than trotting out tired old clichés and canards.
Strictly speaking, if I understand it correctly, and I'd like one if the RC's here here to correct me if I'm wrong, the RCC certainly understands that Christ's sacrifice was 'once for all' as the Epistle to the Hebrews states.
To say that the Mass 'represents' or in some way 're-enacts' Calvary isn't to say that Christ is being crucified over and over and over again - even if it may be presented like that in popular RC devotion at times.
I seem to remember reading part of the RC Catechism that makes that clear. But again, I will stand corrected if I'm wrong.
I can certainly understand why RC converts to Protestant evangelicalism would reject statues and rosaries and so on and so forth - but there's more to the RCC than plaster saints and folk-art.
Sure, from my own perspective the RCC goes way too far in certain things and I'm squeamish about aspects of traditional RC practice and devotion. I know many RCs who are uncomfortable with some aspects and who find them OTT or superstitious.
Hans Kung made a telling comment how in RC circles fundamentalism often manifests itself in terms of a particular devotion or even fixation with particular objects, places or physical artefacts of one form or other -- whereas in Protestantism it tends to manifest itself in attention to quirky or eccentric interpretations if favourite biblical texts or an obsessive interest in the End Times and so forth.
I think there's a lot in that observation.
But we're talking about biblical inerrancy here ... And FWIW I think it is possible to hold to a high view of scriptural inspiration without tying oneself in knots over the Dead Horse inerrancy/infallibility issues. They're a dead end.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Forthview;
quote:
On a recent thread elsewhere we had a denigration of Buddhists.I know little really about Buddhists. I can easily accept that certain representatives of the Buddhist faith can appear to act in an unscrupulous manner,because I have often seen those who claim to represent the Christian faith act similarly. I would,however, not try to believe that there is something intrinsically evil with the Buddhist faith,no more than I would do so for the Christian faith in its different and differing manifestations.
I'm not sure if you might be referring here to a passing comment I made about Buddhism; if so, that was in fact a comment not intended to denigrate Buddhists at all, but to make the point that it is not only in Christianity and Islam that the attempt to have a 'religious state' can end up in warfare and similar problems.
Although I certainly don't agree with many of the ideas of Buddhism, or indeed with what appears to be its fundamental world view: as I understand it Buddhism-as-Buddha-intended would be inherently peaceable albeit for very different reasons to those in Christianity. But where a Buddhist state was attempted, warfare usually ensued and the related problems - right down to modern times. My comment was intended to bring out that even Buddhism had problems when used as a state religion, rather than to say Buddhism in itself is evil; there is much good in it, unfortunately from a Christian view much untruth as well.
Thanks for your presentation of the RCC view; what is the date of that catechism relative to, e.g., the Vatican II changes?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
But we're talking about biblical inerrancy here
Actually as I pointed out earlier I'm not talking about 'biblical inerrancy' but biblical interpretation. I don't regard 'biblical inerrancy' as a very helpful term, but rather potentially confusing, though I'm in broad agreement with JI Packer's views on it. Trouble is, I had to pick up this conversation in this thread due to a hostly decision; I understand that decision and accept it - but it's still not a useful term....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mass claims to be a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on calvary. What happened to the scriptural statement in Hebrews that he died once for all, never to die again? No need to re-enact anything.
Once again, not really accurate. As explained in the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Forthview helpfully supplied in the post just before yours, the mass is understood to be a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary. It is understood to be a memorial in which that one past event is made a present reality—which incidentally, is exactly what is meant both by the Hebrew concept of memorial in the OT and by the Greek word used in the Gospels (and Paul) that we translate as "remembrance."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mass claims to be a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on calvary. What happened to the scriptural statement in Hebrews that he died once for all, never to die again? No need to re-enact anything.
Once again, not really accurate. As explained in the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Forthview helpfully supplied in the post just before yours, the mass is understood to be a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary. It is understood to be a memorial in which that one past event is made a present reality—which incidentally, is exactly what is meant both by the Hebrew concept of memorial in the OT and by the Greek word used in the Gospels (and Paul) that we translate as "remembrance."
Exactly what I said or is there a difference between representation and re-enactment?
So sick of this pedantry. It totally misses the point anyway. The mass is unscriptural. It is a travesty. That is the point.
And going back to the 'apples with apples' comment, on the one hand a priest is 'vested' with power by the RC church by means of the 'sacrament' of Holy Orders, to transubstantiate a wafer into Christ's body and wine into Christ's blood so that both are seen as 'real' presence. Overall a highly ritualised process (by the way, show me the word sacrament in the Bible used in that sense or anywhere.)
And
On the other hand you have a powerful anointing of the Holy Spirit on the apostle Peter to physically heal a man as a testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
And you want them to be analogous?
Give us all a break!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
. quote:
I will send you the bill for a new irony meter, as mine is now well and truly broken
Always happy to pay other people's bills. been married 40 years.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the other hand you have a powerful anointing of the Holy Spirit on the apostle Peter to physically heal a man as a testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
And you want them to be analogous?
Give us all a break!
Perhaps rather than scoff you could explain the disanalogy. Because both are God working miracles through a human.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Bluntly, if both you and Steve Langton want to avoid being 'patronised' and pilloried, then I suggest you check your facts rather than trotting out tired old clichés and canards.
Great. Tired old clichés and canards? The point Gamaliel is that so much traditional church practice, doctrine and tradition does not stack up against scriptural statements. But of course scriptural statement is not enough right? you need tradition, you need the Sensus Plenii and whatever else new interpretive post-modern new age lectio Davina bull shit, candles, meditation, visualising and whatever else as an aid to understanding and worship. be nice to hear the word repentance once on a while in preaching. Be nice to meet some humility before the Lord. But there is not much of it on display here is there?
It was stated above that many egregious errors have been initiated by people interpreting for themselves.
What if we substitute the word 'interpreting' for say 'reading' or 'feeding on' or 'absorbing', or heaven forbid, 'obeying' or 'taking seriously', then maybe we're making progress.
To believe you, we're in a new counter reformation. To me, scripture, however you look at it is God's word. Don't try to change and rearrange and discredit it cos it doesn't suit the post modern mind set and still pretend that what you are doing is anywhere close to genuine Christian worship and practice. What that is I certainly do not claim to decide but what it isn't is pretty clear. I am not enamoured with the average evo or pente service either.
That's it from me.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
