L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Never heard of such a thing in any protestant circle whatsoever.
Not until one studies Catholicism does he or she encounter such terminology.
- Status
Not until one studies Catholicism does he or she encounter such terminology.
S
susanlo
Guest
There is a difference between a propitiatory sacrifice like the sacrifice of the mass and a sacrifice of thanksgiving or thank offering. There were at least 5 different types of sacrifices in the Old Testament that were performed for very different reasons.
I do believe that many in the early centuries considered the Eucharist to be a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Later this evolved into the sacrifice of the mass for atonement of sins. The sacrifice of the mass was rejected by Luther and the others. I don’t believe that they objected to the concept of a thank offering as we see in the early centuries. The term “sacrifice” is not used today, but the concept remains.
justforcatholics.org/a173.htm
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Luther advocated the elimination of “anything that smacks of sacrifice”.
His words, not mine.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
As would probably 99.9% of protestant pastors, imo.
I didn’t even hear such talk in the Anglican Church which is Catholic lite.
L
lanman87
Guest
My Baptist teaching on sacrifice is modeled after Hebrews 13:15- Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. ESV
So when the Didache says:
Chapter 14. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
My (admittedly Baptist influenced) mind did not think of the “sacrifice” mentioned in the Didache as the Eucharist but as the assembling together to worship in a “sacrifice of praise”. That is, acknowledging His name. Obviously, the Eucharist is a way to acknowledge His name but so is reading the scriptures, prayer, singing, teaching and so forth.
Baptist also teach sacrifice in terms of giving up something for the Kingdom of God, be it money (sacrificial giving), or giving up time and using talents to Glorify God and help grow the Kingdom.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure, as is fitting of a Baptist. “Presbyterian gymnastics” (a word I learned at the Baptist seminary) can be used to make all sorts of scripture say all sorts of things.
But no one in the first 1500 years of the Church shared that view. If you seek the eternal Church of the eternal God, that should be somewhat disconcerting.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Being fluent in German myself I would like to know where you got this from? “Smack” is not a very common “English” word and it may be somewhat interesting what you are saying?
Regards
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Ian, I appreciate your perspective on that. Thanks for taking the time to do so.
Since we are talking Eucharist, and now the book of Hebrews…what is your Baptist perspective on this passage:
Hebrews 6:4
L
lanman87
Guest
Well, without cheating and looking at Baptist websites… the Bible, at various places, calls grace, faith, eternal life, justification and righteousness gifts. However, if I had to sum it all up in one word, I would say the heavenly gift is the gospel. I think to say it is anything else would be wildly speculative.
This of course a difficult passage for the OSAS folks. They do not teach that having tasted the heavenly gift and sharing in the spirit to mean that someone has been redeemed. From what I remember (without looking it up) they believe that to be enlightened means to have heard the gospel and tasting the gospel is basically dabbling in the faith without committing to it. Think of tasting a browning to see if you like it. And sharing in the Spirit means you have seen the Spirit at work but have not yet been filled with or baptized with the spirit.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Thanks Ian.
I jostled with this one as a protestant for a variety of reasons. Contextually, it’s obviously referring to apostasy so it opens up the OSAS argument.
But in regards to the “heavenly gift” reference, i just sort of plugged in my personal encounter with Jesus as Lord there as a possible explanation. Well, now as a Catholic I’ve come to the realization that the Fathers actually understood this passage to refer to the Eucharist.
And since the Fathers pretty much unanimously understood Baptism to be regenerational, the “enlightened” part was understood to be water Baptism.(Eph 5:14) The early church referred to it as “fotismos” or the sacrament of illumination…
From biblegateway on Eph 5:14:
.
God bless.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Translation is very relevant to this topic. Do you translate literally or dynamically? If the individual Christian has to rely on a translation in order to decide whether something is a brick wall or picket fence he has a problem. Is the translation he uses literal or dynamic. If literal he could miss the true meaning. If dynamic then his rule of faith is biased by translators. Either way the actual choice of words used for translation can make a huge difference.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I can actually think of a number of “picket fence” doctrines among Catholics, for which there is no “official Catholic Answer”:
- Is evolution fact or just a theory? (Some on CAF passionately believe in Young Earth Creationism, others accept secular evolutionary theory, others take a middle ground position.)
- Is it a sin to use a medication with abortifacient properties? (Many on CAF would say “of course” but apparently the answer per the USCB is “it depends, there are cases where it can be justified by the Doctrine of Double Effect”.)
- Did Mary die before her Ascension, or not?
- Is personal Marian devotion required for salvation? (And actually I think this may actually be an official answer, No, but many think “but it’s very unlikely a Catholic can be saved without such a devotion, so every Catholic should at least say the Rosary”.)
V
Vonsalza
Guest
His Formula Missae of 1523.
The quote given more fully: “Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice”
I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to encounter different words and different usage of known words in documents that are half-a-millennium old. We now “cleave” things apart instead of together and I go to a clothes store rather than a haberdasher.
Same thing happens in German. “Fraulein” and the German eszett (ß).
L
lanman87
Guest
This is on of the interesting things about Catholicism. As I’ve read the testimonies of many converts to Catholicism one of the main themes is that they have been drawn to the unity of the Church. However, from my research it appears the Catholic Church has a wide variety of belief and practice.
Imagine my shock when I came up on a website of a monastery that claimed the Catholic Church has been apostate since Vatican II and that we are in the end times because of Vatican II. I was like wow, the Catholics have their own version of Independent Fundamentalist KJV only groups.
Even on this board I’ve seen Catholics disagree about Predestination, should Priest be allowed to marry, and should Mary be made “Co-redemptrix”. I’ve read news stories of Priest giving communion to active homosexuals, parishes being damaged because a new priest comes in who is “Traditional”, and so forth. Plus there are Charismatic Catholics and those who are concerned because there are Charismatic Catholics. There are liberal priest, traditionalist priest and what I would call evangelical priest. The local parish may be any of those depending on who is the current bishop/priest. And that is just in the United States.
In Mexico they have Catholics who sacrifice chickens in the church.
In Haiti many Catholics still practice voodoo. And in the Philippines they re-enact the Crucifixion every Easter.
So yes, as a Protestant who is researching Catholicism I’ve found that there are many picket fence doctrines in the Catholic Church. Believing/practicing any of those things may not keep you from being Catholic but those beliefs/practices certainly aren’t shared by everyone.
The difference is when Protestants diverge we split and form new denominations. Think of the Presbyterian church that split in the 1970’s. The PC USA church grew more liberal in accepting abortion and homosexuality and so forth so a group split off and formed the Presbyterian Church of American. Today the PC USA is in steep decline and the PCA is experiencing large growth. I expect something similar to happen in the United Methodist church within the next 10-15 years. You can tell by the name on the sign if a church leans liberal or not. I find that very helpful.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Absolutely. The ancient Church gives us the freedom to believe pretty much as we wish on things that have not been dogmatically defined. Additionally, the multitude of rites within the Catholic Church give believers options on how they wish to experience the liturgy. I, for one, am a huge advocate of the creation of an Anglican rite.
Not all Catholics are Roman Catholic, to be sure. One of my favorite posters on these forums is Byzantine rite.
But we all affirm deposit of faith of the Church and the Church’s authority concerning it.
Sedevacantists, if that’s what you were looking up, are not part of the Church.
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5)
And that’s where the authority of the Church comes in. The “Catholic” proponents of predestination and Mary as co-redemptrix have been authoritatively rebuked by Rome. They might continue in the erroneous belief while calling themselves “Catholic”, but it will be in disobedience.
Priestly marriage is a matter of discipline of the Church and can change.
Married priests from Orthodoxy and some Protestant groups can and have come to Catholicism and continued in their role as priests. So we already have them.
That’s semi-fair. As long as we’re a Church made up of real people that administer to real people, there will always be issues coming and going with time.
Many Catholics have cheated on their spouse. So that makes it a teaching of the Church? :ehh:
The Church has unambiguously rebuked Santeria.
There is much that is disciplinary that is “picket fence”. There is also very little that is theological that isn’t “brick wall”. You must affirm the Trinity to be a Catholic. Plenty of Protestants don’t.
The comparison here might best be summarized as “dogma is brick wall, discipline is picket fence”.
No kidding. When Catholics diverge, there is generally a council or Papal address that defines the issue for Christendom and we continue as one Church.
I’m glad you’re looking further into the ancient Church.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I think that LM is just being obstinate with regard to Polycarp’s infant baptism and his age at his martyrdom.
This is a pretty good summation on Polycarp.
This is a pretty good summation on Polycarp.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
BTW, you guys might benefit from the following…
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
L
lanman87
Guest
I dunno, the wikipedia article even says the 86 years could be from birth or from conversion. The Harris documents the article talks about say that Polycarp was 104 at his death and was baptized at age 18. I don’t know if the Harris fragments are reliable or not but apparently they are believed to have been written in the 3rd century.I think that LM is just being obstinate with regard to Polycarp’s infant baptism and his age at his martyrdom.
This is a pretty good summation on Polycarp.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
For sure, a man that wants to doubt will always find a reason to doubt. Look at the flat-Earthers. :whacky:
But even the rational will concede that fragments specifically mentioning it are as old as 180 AD. The NT wasn’t even finished being written until 95 AD or so, ergo the belief is contemporary with the NT itself. The Bishopric was still in its second or third generation for the places not sped-up by martyrdom.
We’re not talking about something like “tongues” where there’s practically no record predating the incandescent light-bulb. This is also something the overwhelming majority of Protestantism submitted to; at least until the rise of 19th and 20th century restorationism.
A
adf417
Guest
Doubting is one thing but doubting the faith when it says “He will not leave us orphans” and “he will be with always” is nothing but problematic for all things Christian.
Peace!!!
- Status