(1 Corinthians 14:26-29) Church Service?

[Lazerlike42]

(Matthew 5:14-15) “You are light for the world. A city built on a hill-top cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp to put it under a tub; they put it on the lamp-stand where it shines for everyone in the house.”

People may be walking in the gifts, but I was going to the Catholic Church into my forties, and from age of twenty-five to forty I went to Mass and communion most every day. I also was a co instructor in Catholic adult class. You know I didn’t know anything about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. I never heard anyone speak in tongues or give a prophesy at Mass.
Robert

That is because I would say that the charismatic gifts are extremely rare. Nowhere do we have an instruction as to the frequency of how often people will receive one gift as opposed to the other. I would say that the majority of people receive gifts such as faith and wisdom, while every once in a while the gift of tongues or gifts like Padre Pio or St. Francis had show up. You might disagree, but the truth is that neither Scripture nor the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, the only two things on earth that anyone can turn to for such authority (Scripture if you are Protestant, Scripture and/or the Magesterum if you are Catholic), would give support to either one of us.

What we can do is look to the Scriptures and infer information. For instance, it’s rather clear that during certain periods of history God chose to grant fewer miracles than during other periods. Seeing as that they are not that common these days, I’d say we are in one of the periods where God is not choosing to grant that many. In fact, it’s also rather clear in Scripture that God seems to grant more miracles befoe some major event in salation history occurs (e.g., the giving of the decalogue, the resurrection of Christ). The only thing we’ve got to wait for is the end of the world, so I would say that until then, we aren’t going to be seeing that many miracles such as tongue speakers.

This is also probably because St. Paul clearly instructs that we are not to use these gifts unless we are in a situation where it is appropriate. So if we are in church and there is nobody around to interpret our tongues, we’re not supposed to use them.

Many of those who very clearly did have charismatic gifts have not made it a point to say that we ought to be speaking in tongues more, or prophesying more. In fact, they all felt extrememly blessed to have had such a rare grace of God fall on them. These are people who were extremely close to God, and very clearly showed his grace working through them charismatically. If these gifts were not rare, they would have known it, and would not have felt any more blessed than anyone else who would have also had the gifts but simply chose not to use them.

I think it’s fair to say that the majority of cases where people “speak in tongues” are just plain phony. In fact, there are plenty of Catholic Masses, both Charismatic and regular ol’ Masses, where people have spoken in tongues and others there who happened to speak these languages reported that what the folks were saying was just gibberish. On the other hand, every once in a while the individual speaking in tongues is found to be saying things about God.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Robert Heibel:

Dear Mark,
You said “Coming from Catholic perspective” 1.) The time of public revelation has ceased with the death of the last Apostles.

You know I may not know what you mean by public revelation would you give me your definition?
Robert

Public revelation is whatever revelation was made for the purpose of our salvation and was revealed with the intent of its reaching the whole world. It’s all the Scriptural and Apostolic teachings. It is the absolute, definitivley true, nothing can ever surpass, change, or improve, or complete.

In other words, it is the revelation that God made publicly through the apostles and His earthly ministry. Think of God giving a press conference where all the apostles are the reporters. He gave all this informartion out so the apostles would relay that to the world.

Private revelation is a revelation that God makes privately to an individual or occassionally a group of individuals. A private revelation will never contradict the public revelation. It will never say something new on top of it, for instance, “there is the 8th Sacrament of foot washing.” In public revelation, we have a complete revelation of what is necessary for salvation. Private revelations reveal other things, like what Hell is like, or, “you, Alfred, are going to go to heaven and do great things for the Lord,” or something like that. Private revelations say things like, “gee look here is a rosary it’s a really cool way to pray.” They are the apparitions of Mary, and the visions of mystics, and the secret knowledge revealed to people like Padre Pio.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Lazerlike42:

Public revelation is whatever revelation was made for the purpose of our salvation and was revealed with the intent of its reaching the whole world. It’s all the Scriptural and Apostolic teachings. It is the absolute, definitivley true, nothing can ever surpass, change, or improve, or complete.

In other words, it is the revelation that God made publicly through the apostles and His earthly ministry. Think of God giving a press conference where all the apostles are the reporters. He gave all this informartion out so the apostles would relay that to the world.

Private revelation is a revelation that God makes privately to an individual or occassionally a group of individuals. A private revelation will never contradict the public revelation. It will never say something new on top of it, for instance, “there is the 8th Sacrament of foot washing.” In public revelation, we have a complete revelation of what is necessary for salvation. Private revelations reveal other things, like what Hell is like, or, “you, Alfred, are going to go to heaven and do great things for the Lord,” or something like that. Private revelations say things like, “gee look here is a rosary it’s a really cool way to pray.” They are the apparitions of Mary, and the visions of mystics, and the secret knowledge revealed to people like Padre Pio.

What did your post have to do with my thread.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Robert Heibel:

Dear Mark,
You said “Coming from Catholic perspective” 1.) The time of public revelation has ceased with the death of the last Apostles.

You know I may not know what you mean by public revelation would you give me your definition?
Robert

I believe **Lazerlike42, **in his discussion about private revelations was trying to address your question to Mark above. The general revelation is distinct from private revelations from God, according to Catholic doctrine, in the following way…

From *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *by Ludwig Ott:

With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)

Pope Pius X rejected the liberal Protestant and Modernistic doctrine of the evolution of religion through “New Revelations.” Thus he condemned the proposition that: “The Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles.” D 2021.

The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made. Christ was the fulfilment of the Law of the Old Testament (Mt. 5, 17 ; 5, 21 et seq), and the absolute teacher of humanity (Mt. 23, 10: “One is your master, Christ” ; cf. Mt. 28, 20). The Apostles saw in Christ: “the coming of the fullness of time” (Gal. 4, 4) and regarded as their task the preservation, integral and unfalsified, of the heritage of Faith entrusted to them by Christ (1 Tim. 6, 14; 6,20; 2 Tim.1, 14; 2,2; 3,14). The Fathers indignantly repudiated the claim of the heretics to possess secret doctrines or new Revelations of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer III 1 ; IV 35, 8), and Tertullian (De praesc. 21) stress, against the Gnostics, that the full truth of Revelation is contained in the doctrine of the Apostles which is preserved unfalsified through the uninterrupted succession of the bishops.

Consequently, the “public revelation” referred to is that which is the object of Catholic faith, which is “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) in apostolic times.

“Private revelations” from God cannot add to that deposit of faith given by Christ to the apostles, as if there was something essentially lacking in apostolic teaching. Instead, private revelations are meant only to magnify the light that Christ brought to the world, through the apostles. Private revelations are intended solely for those individuals given this private gift, and not to be considered another object of Catholic faith.

In other words, if tomorrow Sister Mary Margaret begins speaking in tongues, (assuming that it is really a Divine gift), then that gift is for those who witnessed such an event. It is not something that was intended to be binding on all the faithful as the general revelation is. It was not intended to evolve the Christian faith once and for all delivered in the 1st century into something new.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Dave,
Amen, I agree with you, but I came to the understanding differently. Jesus told me He is God and He also told me that the Bible is His Word. So if Jesus is God and the Bible is His Word, who am I to add anything to God’s Word. Jesus also told me not to try to figure Him out. Just follow Him. If I tried to add to His Word I wouldn’t be following Him. Satan would like for me to try to deviate from God’s Word. The Bible is my anchor; if the Holy Spirit ever told me something that didn’t follow Scripture I would know that it couldn’t be the Holy Spirit.

After saying all that I wonder how much is known, by the average Christian, about the gift of the Holy Spirit? What Paul said in (Corinthians 14:26-29) has nothing to do with adding or taking away anything from the written Word.
Robert

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Robert Heibel:

…Jesus told me He is God and He also told me that the Bible is His Word.

I have not had the benefit of direct revelation from God. Like most, I have to go off the testimony of that Church that Jesus said He built upon the rock of Peter, to whom Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.”

So if Jesus is God and the Bible is His Word, who am I to add anything to God’s Word.

You certainly should not add anything to God’s Word. Yet, the Bible says, “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25). Thus, the need for tradition. The apostles frankly admitted they could not write everything they had been taught onto paper. Nor where they commissioned to by Jesus. Instead, they understood that they were to pass on the deposit of faith to their sucessors, whether written or oral.

The Bible teaches that such “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) is authoritative. St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.

According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):

paradosis “a handing down or on” (akin to paradidomi, “to hand over, deliver”), denotes “a tradition”

St. Paul tells us that we are to shun those who do not hold fast to the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that has been taught (Gk “paralambano”) by the apostles (cf. 2 Thess 3:6). Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…

“*So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk "paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" *(2 Thess 2:15).

According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):

paralambano: to receive with the mind 1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the*** tradition*** proceeds 2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

Consequently, our Catholic faith is something that was “traditioned” to us from the first century. Adding to that which was “traditioned” from the apostles is certainly to be proscribed.

However, there’s a distinction between material development and formal development. From Adam until Christ, material development gradually increased in two ways: 1) in the content revealed by God, and 2) in the people God revealed it to. The material or “stuff” of God’s supernatural revelation developed until His Incarnate Word taught us His Gospel.

Formal development of that material or “stuff,” however, does continue, through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That stuff of Divine revelation contains “mystery,” which is something man must prayerfully contemplate further in order to more fully understand it. Therefore, although the “stuff” of revelation has been completely manifest in the Incarnate Word, our understanding of that stuff can and should continue to grow, by the grace of God.

And so Catholicism recognizes the formal development of what God has revealed to us (development in its “form”), but rejects material development beyond that which has been completely manifest by Christ.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Jesus also told me not to try to figure Him out. Just follow Him. If I tried to add to His Word I wouldn’t be following Him. Satan would like for me to try to deviate from God’s Word. The Bible is my anchor; if the Holy Spirit ever told me something that didn’t follow Scripture I would know that it couldn’t be the Holy Spirit.

We are all bound by faith to follow Divine revelation, in all its manifest forms. But just because Jesus told you something, doesn’t make it a part of the deposit of faith that St. Jude speaks of, which all Christianity is bound by. Perhaps He meant it just for you. If He meant it for me too, I’m sure he’d tell me so.

Did Jesus tell you that the 66-book Bible is not His complete written Word? It’s missing, for example, many parts of His Book of Daniel, which every Christian Church throughout history accepted until Martin Luther and other protestors rejected significant parts of His Divine Word and called it “apocryphal.” I’m thinking that’s taking away from God’s written Word, which is not in accord with Christ’s teaching, as we live by “every Word out of the mouth of God.”

And since Jesus gave authority to his Church to be the final arbiter (cf. Matt 18:17 “… tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”), then I’d say I’m to look to the Church for authoritative guidance, specifically that ancient Church, which holds fast to the ancient traditions Paul speaks of, where I find rest for my soul.

Thus says the LORD: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. (Jer 6:16)

After saying all that I wonder how much is known, by the average Christian, about the gift of the Holy Spirit? What Paul said in (Corinthians 14:26-29) has nothing to do with adding or taking away anything from the written Word.

St. Paul did not teach nothing should be added to the written Word. That would be very surprising indeed coming from one whose letters ADDED TO the Written Word, and from one who in his letters clearly valued tradition, both oral and written, as authoritative.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

itsjustdave1988:

I have not had the benefit of direct revelation from God. Like most, I have to go off the testimony of that Church that Jesus said He built upon the rock of Peter, to whom Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.”

You certainly should not add anything to God’s Word. Yet, the Bible says, “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25). Thus, the need for tradition. The apostles frankly admitted they could not write everything they had been taught onto paper. Nor where they commissioned to by Jesus. Instead, they understood that they were to pass on the deposit of faith to their sucessors, whether written or oral.

The Bible teaches that such “tradition” (Gk “paradosis”) is authoritative. St. Jude (Jude 3) asserts that the deposit of faith is handed on or delivered (Grk “paradidomi”), which literally means that it was “traditioned” to the faithful.

According to Vine’s *Expository of New Testament Words *(Protestant source):

St. Paul tells us that we are to shun those who do not hold fast to the tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that has been taught (Gk “paralambano”) by the apostles (cf. 2 Thess 3:6). Moreover, according to Scripture, these traditions are both oral and written…

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (Gk "paradosis”) that you were taught (Gk “paralambano”) by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15).

According to Thayer’s Lexicon (Protestant source):

Consequently, our Catholic faith is something that was “traditioned” to us from the first century. Adding to that which was “traditioned” from the apostles is certainly to be proscribed.

However, there’s a distinction between material development and formal development. From Adam until Christ, material development gradually increased in two ways: 1) in the content revealed by God, and 2) in the people God revealed it to. The material or “stuff” of God’s supernatural revelation developed until His Incarnate Word taught us His Gospel.

Formal development of that material or “stuff,” however, does continue, through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That stuff of Divine revelation contains “mystery,” which is something man must prayerfully contemplate further in order to more fully understand it. Therefore, although the “stuff” of revelation has been completely manifest in the Incarnate Word, our understanding of that stuff can and should continue to grow, by the grace of God.

And so Catholicism recognizes the formal development of what God has revealed to us (development in its “form”), but rejects material development beyond that which has been completely manifest by Christ.

to be continued…

JustDave, Remember tradition cannot contradict the written Word. So if the Holy Spirit didn’t think some part of tradition should be placed in the Bible maybe it wasn’t too important.
Bob

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Robert Heibel:

JustDave, Remember tradition cannot contradict the written Word. So if the Holy Spirit didn’t think some part of tradition should be placed in the Bible maybe it wasn’t too important.
Bob

Yes, but tell me which pre-Reformation era Christian Church in all of history omitted the Theodotian recession of Daniel from their Scripture? The correct answer: none. Not one in over 1500 years. So, one ought to ask themself … did the Holy Spirit fail to guide 1500 years of Christians until Luther omitted from his Bible the Theodotian recession of the book of Daniel? Is it sound to omit, for example, the Epistle of James from our Bible based solely upon my personal belief that the Holy Spirit did not inspire it? If the Bible is something that changes with each person’s opinion, then how can your statement about the Bible being God’s Word have any meaning? Which Bible do you mean, the truncated 16th century Protestant Bible or the one first canonized by Christianity in the 4th century? The Mormons believe their Scritpure’s are inspired, no? The Sadducees only counted the first five books as Scripture, right? The Qumran scrolls had many more books, didn’t they? Surely, it isn’t simply a matter of fallible judgement as to what books make up the Holy Bible, right? Simply claiming that the Holy Spirit told you which books are in the Bible is no more convincing to me than when the Mormons explain their Scripture as inspired by the same reason.

Or perhaps, was the Holy Spirit guiding Christianity correctly for 1500+ years, and Luther and the Protestestant Reformers who followed made an error? If find it rather unconvincing to think the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the Church, the final arbiter of disputes (cf. Matt 18:17), until Luther.

BTW, Theodotian was a 2nd century Jew who translated the recession of Daniel that he understood to be Holy Scripture from Hebrew to Greek. His version agrees in its content with the Greek Septuagint translated well before the advent of Christianity, BY JEWS.

This Septuagintal recession of the Book of Daniel was rejected by Pharisees no earlier than the end of the first century, after the advent of Christianity. But not all Jews, even to this day, agreed with these Pharisees. BTW, these same Pharisees also rejected Jesus.

According to Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger:

… the ancient Greek version of the Book of Daniel is considerably longer than the surviving Hebrew [ie. non-Christian] text. … All Greek witnesses place the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Jews in Dan ch. 3…

The Greek translation made by Theodotion … includes all the outstanding passages in the Greek Daniel as integral parts of the book … The Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions follow Theodotion.

… Jerome’s Latin Vulgate followed Theodotion

[Commentary, *New Oxford Annotated Bible

]

Essentially, every Christian Church accepted Theodotians 2nd century version of Daniel. The Greek Septuagint used by the apostles also was larger than the Protestant version.

So, back to your claim regarding what the Holy Spirit believes is in the Bible. What evidence do Protestants have that the Christian book of Daniel is to be rejected? The Holy Spirit must have failed to guide 1500+ years worth of Christians, which I find impossible to believe.

In fact, still today, most Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit to accept the Catholic and Orthodox version of Daniel, and reject the truncated Luther version.

The entire Book of Daniel is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is inerrant and infallible, without contradiction. The parts Luther didn’t like where not rejected by the Holy Spirit … just by some erroneous Protestants.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From my viewpoint, those that reject the most ancient Christian Bible, used by the apostles and first canonized by Christianity in the 4th century, and affirmed as Holy Scripture by all Spirit-guided Christianity until Luther’s day, are actually rejecting God’s Word. Consequently, their claim to have received guidance by the Holy Spirit contrary to what the Spirit guided ALL of Christianity before them, ought to be suspect, since they cannot even recognize God’s Word. It’s no different than the ancient Ebionite heresy, who rejected all the gospels except the Gospel according to St. Matthew. They certainly thought they were led by the Holy Spirit to do so. Not every spirit is holy, however. Which is why God gave us the Church He built upon the rock of Peter, what Scripture calls the “pillar and foundation of truth” to be the final arbiter when your brethren sin against you–and make no mistake, heresy is a sin. Unholy spirits cannot prevail against the Church. Yet, if one who sinfully rejects parts of the Word of God, what does Scripture teach?

Matt 18:15-18"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the CHURCH; and if he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH [ie. the FINAL earthly arbiter of such matters], let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

BTW, I wonder what Mattew the TAX COLLECTOR thought of this teaching from Christ. :think:

 

[Robert_Heibel]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but tell me which pre-Reformation era Christian Church in all of history omitted the Theodotian recession of Daniel from their Scripture? The correct answer: none. Not one in over 1500 years. So, one ought to ask themself … did the Holy Spirit fail to guide 1500 years of Christians until Luther omitted from his Bible the Theodotian recession of the book of Daniel? Is it sound to omit, for example, the Epistle of James from our Bible based solely upon my personal belief that the Holy Spirit did not inspire it? If the Bible is something that changes with each person’s opinion, then how can your statement about the Bible being God’s Word have any meaning? Which Bible do you mean, the truncated 16th century Protestant Bible or the one first canonized by Christianity in the 4th century? The Mormons believe their Scritpure’s are inspired, no? The Sadducees only counted the first five books as Scripture, right? The Qumran scrolls had many more books, didn’t they? Surely, it isn’t simply a matter of fallible judgement as to what books make up the Holy Bible, right? Simply claiming that the Holy Spirit told you which books are in the Bible is no more convincing to me than when the Mormons explain their Scripture as inspired by the same reason.

Or perhaps, was the Holy Spirit guiding Christianity correctly for 1500+ years, and Luther and the Protestestant Reformers who followed made an error? If find it rather unconvincing to think the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the Church, the final arbiter of disputes (cf. Matt 18:17), until Luther.

BTW, Theodotian was a 2nd century Jew who translated the recession of Daniel that he understood to be Holy Scripture from Hebrew to Greek. His version agrees in its content with the Greek Septuagint translated well before the advent of Christianity, BY JEWS.

This Septuagintal recession of the Book of Daniel was rejected by Pharisees no earlier than the end of the first century, after the advent of Christianity. But not all Jews, even to this day, agreed with these Pharisees. BTW, these same Pharisees also rejected Jesus.

According to Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger:

Essentially, every Christian Church accepted Theodotians 2nd century version of Daniel. The Greek Septuagint used by the apostles also was larger than the Protestant version.

So, back to your claim regarding what the Holy Spirit believes is in the Bible. What evidence do Protestants have that the Christian book of Daniel is to be rejected? The Holy Spirit must have failed to guide 1500+ years worth of Christians, which I find impossible to believe.

In fact, still today, most Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit to accept the Catholic and Orthodox version of Daniel, and reject the truncated Luther version.

The entire Book of Daniel is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is inerrant and infallible, without contradiction. The parts Luther didn’t like where not rejected by the Holy Spirit … just by some erroneous Protestants.

Dave, First I’m not a protestant and the Bible I use the most is the Jerusalem Bible. People can say anything they want to say. I have seen people fake the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That is why all Christians need to have their own personal relationship with Jesus. Also if the Holy Spirit is guiding someone he will never led him or her away from the written Word. You should read all my past threads. Notice I stay with the Word. No killing, no sinning, no calling any man father etc., love.

From what I read about Francis of Assisi, Jesus told Him to rebuild His Church. I believe that is what Jesus is having me do. Now I believe God’s Church is all those who hear the Word of the Lord and live it. Something else I remember about what I read about Francis: when he was about to go off to fight in the Crusades, Jesus asked him if he was going to follow the prince of the world or was he going to follow Him? Who was leading the Crusades?
Robert

 

[twf]

Holy Father St. Francis was a very loyal son of the Church. Please do not turn this man into a Protestant. He also affirmed the authority of the Popes. Like the High Priests of the Old Covenant, however, individual popes can be sinful men. This does not take away from te authority of the office itself, and St. Francis understood that. He would never have left the unity of the Catholic Church, he simply wished to address abuses within it.

St. Francis, pray for us.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

twf:

Holy Father St. Francis was a very loyal son of the Church. Please do not turn this man into a Protestant. He also affirmed the authority of the Popes. Like the High Priests of the Old Covenant, however, individual popes can be sinful men. This does not take away from te authority of the office itself, and St. Francis understood that. He would never have left the unity of the Catholic Church, he simply wished to address abuses within it.

St. Francis, pray for us.

Amen!! Me too.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

First I’m not a protestant …

Christianity is commonly divided into Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, according to even Protestant scholars.

Are you Catholic? Do you give your religious assent of intellect and will to all that the Catholic Church teaches? I do. Probably not as piously as did St. Francis, but I’m trying.

From what I read about Francis of Assisi, Jesus told Him to rebuild His Church.

I believe the voice said, “repair my house” which connotes that the house was indeed still standing. A subtle difference, but an important one I think. I also want to point out that what St. Francis understood to be Jesus’ Church, was the Catholic Church, and he never dissented from Catholic doctrine.

I believe that is what Jesus is having me do.

I think we are all called to serve the Lord as faithfully as St. Francis did. Perhaps you should consider joining the Franciscan order. They do wonderful work where I live.

Something else I remember about what I read about Francis: when he was about to go off to fight in the Crusades…

Hmmmm… I don’t remember him preparing to fight in any crusade. He certainly had a youthful desire for a successful military career. However, according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, St. Francis set out “for the wars in Apulia [ie. Italy’s boot heel], but illness forced him home again. He then underwent a conversion that turned him from the worldly life he had been leading.” He was led by Walter of Brienne in this attempt at a war of the Neapolitan States against the emperor, I believe. I don’t recall reading anything about an attempt to join a crusade.

BTW, today is the Feast of St. Francis. May we all follow his example in the service of Jesus Christ.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Jesus is my Lord, my God, and my Savior. I have heard His Word and I live His Word, and are you saying I can’t just be a Christian???

About Francis, what can we expect, people can’t agree about what was written about Jesus, so how can we agree on what happened in a mere man’s life?
Giver

 

[Lazerlike42]

Robert Heibel:

About Francis, what can we expect, people can’t agree about what was written about Jesus, so how can we agree on what happened in a mere man’s life?
Giver

The idea of formally recording history was relatively new at the time of Christ. The idea was not relatively new at the time of Francis. It’s the same reason we can agree on what happened in George Washington’s life - there were people around at the time concerned with keeping historical records.

Also, civilization was much more built up by the time of Francis. Therefore, there is a lot more physical evidence that remains concerning Francis than Jesus. We know a lot more about Washington than Christ because we can go to the house he used to live in, and read his writings, and look at the things he owned, and read letters he wrote to others. We can do the same for Francis because civilization was sufficiently built up by the time he lived for such things to be preserved.

It’s the same reason we know and are more certain about the life of Jesus than about the life of King David… there’s just more evidence because Civilization had grown since David so there’s more left to learn from.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Lazerlike42:

The idea of formally recording history was relatively new at the time of Christ. The idea was not relatively new at the time of Francis. It’s the same reason we can agree on what happened in George Washington’s life - there were people around at the time concerned with keeping historical records.

Also, civilization was much more built up by the time of Francis. Therefore, there is a lot more physical evidence that remains concerning Francis than Jesus. We know a lot more about Washington than Christ because we can go to the house he used to live in, and read his writings, and look at the things he owned, and read letters he wrote to others. We can do the same for Francis because civilization was sufficiently built up by the time he lived for such things to be preserved.

It’s the same reason we know and are more certain about the life of Jesus than about the life of King David… there’s just more evidence because Civilization had grown since David so there’s more left to learn from.

That may be true, but can you believe what your read? The biography I read about Francis was sure different from what some Catholic people have told me they have read. It seems people write into peoples lives what they want to hear, and I believe the churches do the same thing to the Word of God.
Giver

 

[Lazerlike42]

I really haven’t been paying attention to the discussion so I don’t know what disagreements about his life we’re talking about. I just read the last post and wanted to comment in general about why we ought to believe what history tells us about St. Francis. If there are two sides to the story, I am not here to debate which one is true or not. I will only say that when there exist two sides to a story, it is uncommon to find that either is free of embellishment or ommission.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Robert Heibel:

That may be true, but can you believe what your read? The biography I read about Francis was sure different from what some Catholic people have told me they have read. It seems people write into peoples lives what they want to hear, and I believe the churches do the same thing to the Word of God.

The Columbia Encyclopedia is a secular source, not a Catholic source. It seems your version is at variance with it, too.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… are you saying I can’t just be a Christian???

Not at all. But truth does not contradict itself. If what you call Christianity is different from what St. Francis called Christianity, then one of you is wrong. I’ve read the writings of St. Francis, not just about St. Francis. I’ve seen the fruits of his Franciscan order which he founded. He was clearly a Catholic and a friend of Christ, so I’m with him.

According to the Bible, Christ told his Church, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” If one rejects the Church St. Francis knew to be the Church Christ built, then they reject Christ. If they do so deliberately, with full advertence, then God help them. If they do so because of unintended ignorance or barriers to their consent or understanding, God have mercy on them, for they know not what they do.