D
Departed_Light
Guest
Hi Bob,
Are you saying that this quote from St. Augustine says the Magisterium as we have it today existed in the 4th century? (Or are we getting off topic?)
- Status
Are you saying that this quote from St. Augustine says the Magisterium as we have it today existed in the 4th century? (Or are we getting off topic?)
E
estesbob
Guest
Not wanting to get into a semantics argument about what “as we have it today” means, my answer is Yes. He also, BTW, affirms the authority of Church Councils-which are another example of the Magestrium in action:
On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (*Sermons *131:10 [A.D. 411]).
P
puppypatrol
Guest
You are getting a little off topic but, then again, that is just my opinion.
N
ncgolf
Guest
This is a tough call … the Magesterium is the linchpin in the preservation of what is truly revealed in the Scriptures. The stuggle is and will be for many the teaching Magesterium of the Church. Bible alone is neither biblical nor historically accurate and the alternative to that many cannot believe … so while a little off it is a crucial concept in a Bible believer discussion.
C
Contarini
Guest
Another interesting point that many don’t know is that the Puritans insisted that Scripture is only a means of grace when it *is *expounded through preaching (that didn’t exclude the importance of private Bible study, of course, but preaching had a central place). They didn’t think that the public reading of Scripture was normally a means of grace in and of itself. Richard Hooker, the defender of what would become established “Anglicanism,” disagreed. Thus in one sense he was the exponent of “sola Scriptura” against the Puritans! (This is the reverse of how we normally think about that debate.)
I wasn’t talking about the shape of the Mass but the language used. In the 20th century before Vatican II, the Scripture passages were read in the vernacular following the official Latin reading (well, I suppose that’s sort of a change in the shape of the Mass). I don’t know how far back this goes, but I’m pretty sure that it was not the common practice in the Middle Ages or the Reformation era. I would guess the late 19th century or even very early 20th, but I’m not sure. In the Reformation era there were services called “prone” in some areas which involved vernacular Scripture readings, and I won’t claim that no priest ever inserted a vernacular reading into the Mass itself–I think it did happen in some places–but it was not the norm.
There were vernacular schools all over Europe at the village level in the late Middle Ages and early modern period. And there were efforts to identify smart working-class boys and give them a chance at a Latin education, which would open doors to them (usually in the clergy).
A movement in 16th-century German Protestantism pushing for more emphasis on conversion and inner renewal (they thought that Protestantism had come to identify saving faith simply with acceptance of true doctrine). They encouraged people to read and study the Bible at home and in small groups and not simply be content with listening to sermons by the learned clergy. Modern evangelical Protestantism derives largely from Pietism (and from Puritanism in England). The way evangelical Protestants usually think of the Reformation is shaped by Pietist ideology (the Pietists emphasized certain aspects of Luther’s teaching and ignored or de-emphasized others).
The relationship between early evangelicalism and the Enlightenment is debated. The evangelical movements of the 18th century are often seen as a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. But there’s a recent book by W. R. Ward which apparently argues that the relationship goes the other way–that “early evangelicalism” (which would include Pietism) helped fuel the Enlightenment. I need to read the book (I just read a review of it by a friend of mine in Sixteenth Century Studies).
Edwin
P
puppypatrol
Guest
That is also true. I guess my point is that there was no “Bible Christian” concept for the first1500 years of the Faith so, without the Church, the ECFs, etc… and, of course, the Magesterium, there would have been no “Bible Christians” or any Christians at all. period!!!
Then again, there is the fact that our faith requires ALL SCRIPTURE, not just the Bible.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
I thought that was the function of the Holy Spirit as set forth by Jesus Jn14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying the bible is not biblical?
N
ncgolf
Guest
It does … it guides the Church to correctly preach the truth. It is the same spirit that guides you and me. I don’t see a contradiction.
The contents of the Bible is Scripture … there is nothing in Scripture to say you need a bible. The Bible is a collection of inspired writings. The Bible was formed by the Holy Spirit guiding men to carefully construct what should or should not be contained in this collection. The Spirit guided them to the inspired writings.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Your original statement: “the Magesterium is the linchpin in the preservation of what is truly revealed in the Scriptures.” Now, you are saying that the Spirit guides the church. You can understand my confusion.
I’m taking by this statement that you are saying that scripture and the bible are the same thing, and then you say
So, I can only assume that you are saying that there is nothing in the bible that says we need the bible or the inspired word of God. Wow, I don’t know maybe these would change your mind.
Jn. 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jn. 17: 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
There are many more, but you get the idea. And this leads to your final statement
Why would the Holy Spirit bother to inspire the writers of the bible/scripture if it were not needed?
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
‘Not needed’ may be a poor grouping of words when referring to the Scriptures. They are not all that is needed. Despite this they are still profitable like St. Paul tells us they are and it would make for a very tough argument to prove that they are not needed.
God bless
P
Peter_J
Guest
At the risk of sounding nerdish (nerdly?) I would be curious to see the actual words Augustine used which are here replaced by “[of Pope Siricius]” …
P
Peter_J
Guest
[Good quotes, by the way, but I thought it best not to re-quote them all.
]The church was and still is careful about what words she uses, particularly in regard to whether they can be found in the scriptures or not. Consider the following statements from then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000 (as quoted here):
P
Peter_J
Guest
The thing is, Protestants changed the idea from sufficiency of Scripture to sola scriptura (or, some would say, changed it from sola scriptura to solo scriptura).
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
I’m not following all this Latin semantics. I have enough trouble with English.
Just a couple of questions. What’s the differance between sufficiency of scripture and sola scriptura and didn’t Jesus say Jn17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
and Jn. 5:39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. The bible says that everything we need for eternal life is found in the bible and that is faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. So what else do you think we need?
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
What makes you think that Christ is talking about the Scriptures here? The scriptures tell us Who God’s word is:
And Christ tells us what Truth is:
So to me:
Is talking about Christ. Christ then, after this, goes on to declare, in the very next verse, that He was sent into the world:
That is an interesting verse to quote in support of SS. Reading the verse directly before and after Jn 5:39 it appears that Christ is rejecting SS:
He is not telling these people to search the Scriptures, He is admonishing them that though they search the Scriptures, 'because you think in them you have eternal life" they miss Who He is and What He came to do. These people are searching the Scriptures because they, “think in them” they “have eternal life.” And yet Christ tells us these people, “do not have his word abiding” in them. These people have applied SS, have “searched the Scriptures” and deny Christ. I cannot see how this is a good verse to support SS.
God bless you
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
What makes you think He isn’t. Do you think that it’s an accident that He took Word (logos) to indicate who He was. Further on in Jn17 we read 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
How do you think we become one with the Father and the Son
1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
**3Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. **
4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
We abide (live) in the WORD OF GOD. We abide in Christ and He in us thru the WORD OF GOD.
I agree with everything you say here.
I really don’t understand how you can get from these vs. that Jesus is rejecting SS. While He does rebuke the people He is talking to for not recognizing who He is. He still says: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; He is saying that the scriptures that they think have eternal life are the ones that bear witness of Him. Seems pretty clear to me.
Then there is Luke 3:16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Well how do we get baptized (anointed) with the Holy Spirit? 1Jn.2:27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. What are the truth and** all things **that this is talking about Jn14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24He that loveth me not keepeth not my **sayings: and the word **which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Well, it’s the WORD OF GOD That the Spirit of God will bring to our remembrance, if we abide (live) in THE WORD OF GOD, Jesus!!!
K
kalt
Guest
Do you meet in your home (or someone elses)? If not, why not?
N
ncgolf
Guest
One of functions is to protect the Church from teaching error … thus when the Bible was canonized one could be certain all inspired Scriptural texts were included and those that were not inspired were excluded. The HS protected those who wrote and those who compiled … two separate historical events.
I think it is safe to say that no inspired Scriptural writer, NT or OT, wrote with an intent of having it included in something we know today as a Bible.
The bible is not biblical in the sense that the bible does not support its own function explicitly. The Bible does not guarantee itself … it is a book. It is the same idea as the Bible does not teach, people teach. Why do you believe it is complete?
T
Thing
Guest
The Station Mass
History
During the Penal Laws in Ireland - in particular during the 18th century - the Catholic church was oppressed and public ceremonies involving Catholic clergy were banned. Many Catholic churches had also been either destroyed or put to use by the Protestant Church during the period following the Battle of the Boyne (1690).
Nonetheless, Irish Catholic remained faithful to the celebration of the Mass and two new traditions emerged: the Mass rock and the Station Mass. Catholics gathered in the open countryside at a designed spot marked by a rock to celebrate Mass. Usually, the priest arrived in disguise and placed the sacred vessels on the rock while assigned locals kept a look-out from vantage points in the landscape from where they could see any approaching English militia.
The Irish countryside is still littered with these Mass rocks and they are still considered to be special sacred places. The alternative venue for Mass was in people’s homes. Word was put about locally that Mass would be said in a particular house on a particular day. The neighbours would gather for what was often the only opportunity to be at Mass for a long time. Because it was not safe for the priest to carry sacred vessels or vestments with him on his journeys, these were taken care of by the local people. They passed the “Mass kit” from house to house as it was needed.
This Mass became known as the “station Mass” because of the random movement from place to place. In some areas, some houses became known locally as regular venues for Mass and became known as Mass houses. More of these emerged as the Penal Laws were repealed but the Catholic community still did not have resources to build enough churches. Gradually, during the first half of the 19th century, churches were built across the countryside to replace the Mass houses.
Tradition
Following the repeal of the Penal Laws and the passing of Catholic Emancipation (1829), Catholics were free to worship publicly and take their place in civil society. However, the spread of church buildings with adequate accommodation was slow. Hence, the tradition of the Station Mass continued.
Even when each community built its own church building, the Station tradition was kept alive. The two-part focus of having the celebration of Mass in one’s home and an occasion for special hospitality to the neighbours combined to highlight two key strands of the Catholic faith in Ireland. Until the 1970s, the Station Mass was always held in the morning and was followed by “breakfast” for the priest and neighbours. The Station was preceded by weeks of preparation including painting, wall-papering, cleaning and shopping!
The social changes of recent decades have forced change on many aspects of the tradition around the Station Mass. However, the tradition remains strong in many parishes.
P
Peter_J
Guest
On second thought, I shouldn’t have said “sufficiency of Scripture”, which always seems to derail the conversation. Let me change my statement to:
P.S. BTW, "Search the scriptures … " is pretty different from "You search the scriptures … ", right?
- Status