Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter LiamQ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reuben_J said:
How was the Cardinal ’unfamiliar with what’s in the Bible and the differences between the Bible and the contents of the lectionary’? :confused:
Click to expand...
He clearly thinks most of the Bible is contained in the Lectionary–it’s not, and I know he’s made other statements to this effect. Some books of the Bible don’t even appear in the Lectionary. (I don’t have a problem with that, just for the record.)

It’s also interesting that this error made it past his editors at Ignatius Press as well.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
He clearly thinks most of the Bible is contained in the Lectionary–it’s not, and I know he’s made other statements to this effect. Some books of the Bible don’t even appear in the Lectionary. (I don’t have a problem with that, just for the record.)

It’s also interesting that this error made it past his editors at Ignatius Press as well.
Click to expand...
Which books of the Bible are not in the Lectionary?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
He clearly thinks most of the Bible is contained in the Lectionary–it’s not, and I know he’s made other statements to this effect. Some books of the Bible don’t even appear in the Lectionary. (I don’t have a problem with that, just for the record.)

It’s also interesting that this error made it past his editors at Ignatius Press as well.
Click to expand...
In other word, you do not have a justification or reason to say that Cardinal Arinze is 'unfamiliar with what’s in the Bible and the differences between the Bible and the contents of the lectionary’.

If there are books in the Bible that are not represented in the mass readings, it does not mean that most of them are NOT in the Bible. 😉

Look here, I am a cradle Catholic, which probably is the lowest in the rung about apologetic, but if you are going to teach about Bible lesson, you have to be better than me.

You could at least give the Cardinal some credit. I don’t know whether all Protestants are like this but saying a very senior priest, a theologian [he earned his doctorate very early in his years in the fifties, which was quite a feat then where education might not be as easily as available as they are today, especially for an African] is not familiar with the Bible and the lectionary is simply appalling.

But it is not just about his academic credential but rather, there are people who are not Protestants, specifically Catholics, who may know their Bible quite well.

Your statement about the Cardinal being unfamiliar with the Bible and the content of the mass readings is wrong and without deeper knowledge of what you are talking about.

He was right when he said most of the Bible is in the mass readings. Of course most of them are in the mass readings.

If you go through the readings, you would find that they cover most of the major points of the Bible. Most of the topics/messages of the Bible, you would be able to find them in the mass readings. It is really incredible how the Church’s Fathers could arrange such biblical passages especially when they put together the OT readings together with the NT readings to bring out the messages.

The readings cover nearly all aspects of Christian life from the Bible – faith, moral, repentance, faithfulness, healing, marriages, epiphany, death and passion of the Lord, Pentecost, Holy Spirit, gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc.,., etc., the saints, angels, Mother Mary, you name it, they are probably included in the readings.

I do not know how many books are there in your Bible. I hear that Protestants’ Bible is rather thin, thinner than the Catholic Bible.

I also hear that they believe only in the essentials, though honestly I do not know what than mean.

Some books of the Bible are only good read, again, do not know what that means too.

Now if your Bible is thinner than mine, I would say there is something that you do not have but which I have in my Catholic Bible. By the same logic, I could say that the content of your Bible is incomplete. But I am not going to say that. I respect your intellect and your knowledge of the Bible simply because I do not know how good you are at it but I suppose you are good, being a Protestant.

I hope you can impress me with a more logical statement and that you hopefully are not like the Evangelicals that came to my house. You would not want to know what they said and did then.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
He clearly thinks most of the Bible is contained in the Lectionary–it’s not, and I know he’s made other statements to this effect.
Click to expand...
Hi Dave. I’ve been following your posts on this topic, and i was wondering if you just give a slightly better idea, of how much of the Bible is in the Lectionary. I get that your saying that it *isn’t *most, but is it more like, say, 40%? 30%? Even less than 30%?

Alternately put, how far off was the Cardinal’s claim?
 
Peter_J said:
Hi Dave. I’ve been following your posts on this topic, and i was wondering if you just give a slightly better idea, of how much of the Bible is in the Lectionary. I get that your saying that it *isn’t *most, but is it more like, say, 40%? 30%? Even less than 30%?

Alternately put, how far off was the Cardinal’s claim?
Click to expand...
it’s not a mystery:
it’s not an opinion
it’s not a poll

catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

If you went every day

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %
 
alwayswill said:
it’s not a mystery:
it’s not an opinion
it’s not a poll

catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

If you went every day

5689 NT verses used used / 7957 NT total verses = 71.5%
3378 OT verses used / 25044 OT total verses = 13:5 %

combined = 27.5% Verses used in the three year cycle

if you only went on Sundays & Major Feasts
OT 3.7%
NT 40.8 %
combined = 12.7 %
Click to expand...
I just want to know when you quoted that, what your point is?

I already said in the other post that the readings of the mass cover nearly every subject of the Bible which is necessary for Christian life, knowledge of the God and even doctrines.

Faith, moral, repentance, faithfulness, thanksgiving, gratefulness, conversion, discipleship, true worship, epiphany, passion and death of Jesus, the breaking of bread, early Christians, ascension, healing, marriages, the saints, angels, Mother Mary, etc., you name it, they are probably included in the readings.

Does counting every verse mean you are better than me in the knowledge of the Bible? Probably you are. I am just learning the Bible from what I am taught from the readings of the mass and I can only say that I learn the Bible everyday because I attended the mass everyday and there were always some passages and verses to be learned.

Now if I just read a bit more at home to reflect further on the readings of the day, I think I would be in the right track already.

But I can admit that Protestants may be better off than me in Bible knowledge though I have yet to meet one who really knows that stuff correctly. And I am open to people who really know the Bible. I love preacher like Joel Osteen for example, who seems to know the Bible well. I may not agree on everything with him, but I can give him the credit for knowing his stuff.

But there are too, Catholics who can cite Biblical verses for you. There are quite a number of them in CAF but perhaps that was from their Protestant legacy as many of them are converts.

So I told you about the few pairs of Evangelicals who came to my house. I am sure they do read the Bible more than us Catholics but how was that they did not know it rightly? How was that I, being a mass goer who learned the Bible from my priests as they celebrate the mass could learn a thing or two about the Bible, and that they who were purported to be Bible Christians could not beat me to it?

There must be something not right there.

The second pair of the Evangelicals that came to my house, well, to be fair they just wanted to talk to me outside my gate, but being a Christian, and since they were bringing the Good News, I could not help but wanted to extend my Christian hospitality to them. So I asked them to come in.

They were greeted by a somewhat big grotto inside my house compound with a statue of Mother Mary and a little fountain. And as I ushered them in through the passage way, they probably would notice all those biblical passages which were framed and in big letters hanging on the wall or on the cabinet. Even if they should use the wash room they would also see those biblical verses.

I seated them at one corner of the house and they could see an altar which we put up on the wall, and the Bible being enthroned.

Well, as they began to speak, funny though they did not even comment on all those religious articles. I could notice they made sweeping glances at all those but nothing was mentioned about them.

They opened their bag and gave me a copy of the Bible and I said no thank you I have one my own. Then one of them started to speak about Jesus, how he is the Lord and how he saved us. I said I agree with all that.

Then without listening to my reply much, they just kept on going. They said we do not need human mediator to go to God because we have Jesus. I said okay. They went on to say we should not pray to the dead as they could not hear us. They cited Biblical verses fluently without even referring to the Bible.

I ask them to refer to the verse where God is the God of the living and not the dead and that the saints could hear our prayers. They said they were dead, they could not hear us. I told them to look for the verse which said they offer prayers to God.

Then they whispered to themselves and the discourse was abruptly stopped as they seemed to be opening their Bible now. They could not give me anything so I said, maybe you should look at Revelation somewhere in chapter 5 where the saints are offering prayers to God under the form of incense.

I was not trying to argue with them but what surprised me was that they did not know about that. I did not know what else that they did not know but if that was all they got and with the wrong understanding of the Bible, then a mass going Catholic like me would be probably far better off than them.

So that’s what I was saying. I do not know how many verses in the Bible, which is far too advanced for me. But if it is measured in verses maybe we have more verses in our Catholic Bible compared to the Protestants’ one as your Bible have fewer books, right? ;).

But probably that does not matter in the bigger scheme of thing. Perhaps more importantly would be to know the Bible correctly and to live by it correctly.
 
This is getting silly. Let’s not tip-toe around the fact that many in the Church hierarchy did wrongly try to limit the amount of private reading of the Bible by the laity. That was harmful, poor judgment, and a detriment to our faith. That said, it’s also wrong to try to cast this as some type of malicious conspiracy. It was a counter-reaction to the Reformation and its fruit, which we’ve so clearly seen. On top of that, with being on the edge of mass printing production (during times of high illiteracy), and so many different common tongues in use across Europe, and so many bad translations and lacking the ability to monitor such things, the reaction is a bit more understandable, if misguided and poor judgment.

Much of the Bible is read during the mass. Let’s not try to undermine this. The Roman Catholic lectionary has been adopted and adapted by many Protestant denominations precisely because of how thorough and broad it is in its reach. We get the vast majority of the New Testament and many of the dominant narrative threads of the old. I might not hear of all the exact standards of Levitical Temple sacrifices in the mass, and I may not get to hear to what exact specifications the Ark of the Covenant was built, or all of the items in the Tabernacle, or of the Temple and the Palace, or long lists of genealogies and numbers, but the dominant narratives are there in the readings, and the lectionary ensures that Catholics (and non-Catholics using it) are exposed to the Bible consistently wherever they are in the world and that it’s not simply subject to the whims of individual pastors who may wish to preach on the same limited selection of verses. The readings also truly do put a great deal of the Bible in the mass (let’s not forget that must of the prayers and responses are pulled straight from the Bible, but even excepting that), it’s absurd to deny that, whereas many of the low church denominations I’ve visited with relatives have very little readings actually done in the service, often only a handful of verses from a few select areas.

Anyway, the Catholic lectionary exposes Catholics and non-Catholics to a great deal of Scripture within the liturgy itself on a weekly (if not daily) basis, and this really shouldn’t be mocked. The Church did exercise poor judgment in discouraging private readings since the Reformation, and that’s caught up with us, and the Church deserves criticism for it, but the Church has gone through hard times and controversy’s before and pulled through, and it certainly has revived it’s focus on better Scriptural literacy among the laity.

Anyway, I don’t mean to belabor the point. I actually hope to put an end to the belaboring (because I’m that amazing! lol) so Protestants can continue to address the original question in new ways.
 
Wesrock said:
This is getting silly. Let’s not tip-toe around the fact that many in the Church hierarchy did wrongly try to limit the amount of private reading of the Bible by the laity. That was harmful, poor judgment, and a detriment to our faith. That said, it’s also wrong to try to cast this as some type of malicious conspiracy. It was a counter-reaction to the Reformation and its fruit, which we’ve so clearly seen. On top of that, with being on the edge of mass printing production (during times of high illiteracy), and so many different common tongues in use across Europe, and so many bad translations and lacking the ability to monitor such things, the reaction is a bit more understandable, if misguided and poor judgment.

Much of the Bible is read during the mass. Let’s not try to undermine this. The Roman Catholic lectionary has been adopted and adapted by many Protestant denominations precisely because of how thorough and broad it is in its reach. We get the vast majority of the New Testament and many of the dominant narrative threads of the old. I might not hear of all the exact standards of Levitical Temple sacrifices in the mass, and I may not get to hear to what exact specifications the Ark of the Covenant was built, or all of the items in the Tabernacle, or of the Temple and the Palace, or long lists of genealogies and numbers, but the dominant narratives are there in the readings, and the lectionary ensures that Catholics (and non-Catholics using it) are exposed to the Bible consistently wherever they are in the world and that it’s not simply subject to the whims of individual pastors who may wish to preach on the same limited selection of verses. The readings also truly do put a great deal of the Bible in the mass (let’s not forget that must of the prayers and responses are pulled straight from the Bible, but even excepting that), it’s absurd to deny that, whereas many of the low church denominations I’ve visited with relatives have very little readings actually done in the service, often only a handful of verses from a few select areas.

Anyway, the Catholic lectionary exposes Catholics and non-Catholics to a great deal of Scripture within the liturgy itself on a weekly (if not daily) basis, and this really shouldn’t be mocked. The Church did exercise poor judgment in discouraging private readings since the Reformation, and that’s caught up with us, and the Church deserves criticism for it, but the Church has gone through hard times and controversy’s before and pulled through, and it certainly has revived it’s focus on better Scriptural literacy among the laity.

Anyway, I don’t mean to belabor the point. I actually hope to put an end to the belaboring (because I’m that amazing! lol) so Protestants can continue to address the original question in new ways.
Click to expand...
Martin was encouraged to read Scripture… those after the “adjenda to pit Scripture against the Church” were discouraged for doing this.

I agree that the lectionary does focus passages on key aspect of the message. And that the Gospels are probably most emphasized. I would be surprised if the entire 4 Gospels are not covered within 3 yrs.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
He clearly thinks most of the Bible is contained in the Lectionary–it’s not, and I know he’s made other statements to this effect. Some books of the Bible don’t even appear in the Lectionary. (I don’t have a problem with that, just for the record.)

It’s also interesting that this error made it past his editors at Ignatius Press as well.
Click to expand...
You are making assumptions about Cardinal Arinze’s knowledge of scripture that are simply cartoonish.
Perhaps you don’t know what he’s saying. :sad_yes:
 
Reuben_J said:
I just want to know when you quoted that, what your point is?

I already said in the other post that the readings of the mass cover nearly every subject of the Bible which is necessary for Christian life, knowledge of the God and even doctrines.

Faith, moral, repentance, faithfulness, thanksgiving, gratefulness, conversion, discipleship, true worship, epiphany, passion and death of Jesus, the breaking of bread, early Christians, ascension, healing, marriages, the saints, angels, Mother Mary, etc., you name it, they are probably included in the readings…

… So that’s what I was saying. I do not know how many verses in the Bible, which is far too advanced for me. But if it is measured in verses maybe we have more verses in our Catholic Bible compared to the Protestants’ one as your Bible have fewer books, right? ;).

But probably that does not matter in the bigger scheme of thing. Perhaps more importantly would be to know the Bible correctly and to live by it correctly.
Click to expand...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What we may see as beautiful interpretation and devotion, they may see as an abomination. But really, we all can agree with St Jerome, that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

We also should remember what Jesus warned the Pharisees:

John 5

39You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

We place His Eucharist as equally venerable to His Word.
 
Reuben_J said:
I just want to know when you quoted that, what your point is?
Click to expand...
the point is a rebuttal to your claim
Reuben_J said:
I disagree. I cannot agree with something I did not say. 😉

I said roughly.

I said they roughly get to hear the whole Bible, not the whole Bible but roughly the whole Bible. The readings would cover the main passages of the Bible, and just by attending Sunday mass, they got to cover roughly the whole Bible.
…
Click to expand...
in the context of your post; “roughly” means a rough estimate:
Whole means the complete collection: 100%

IOW it seems that you are saying that the rough estimate of the Bible heard in Mass is around 100%

I am not aware of anyone else feeling that 27.5% is roughly the whole thing.
It seems that 27.5.% is roughly 30 % or maybe 25%: but not roughly the whole thing.

you feel 27.5% is roughly the whole thing.
I do not
🤷: so I’ll drop it.

It is so hard to have a dialog when common words and phrases do not mean the same thing between posters
 
rcwitness said:
Michael, would you say that you place equal veneration to His Eucharist as you place on the Bible?
Click to expand...
I found it quite funny that Peter J referred to the poster as the Non-Catholic Steve B. That was a very funny remark by him. I was an observer. Sorry to have made you think I intended to say anything else.

In all honesty, your question is related to an argument/conversation/post I have never been part of or intended to be. 😊
 
40.png
alwayswill:
alwayswill, I think you have brought up a valid point, that our actual lectionary, if it is factual, does not encompass the majority of the whole Bible, in terms of volume. I won’t argue that. Neither do I think Reubens is arguing that. Rather that the significant portion of the Bible is addressed in the lectionary. Starting with possibly the entirety of the Gospels, then a large part of the Pauline epistles, and the rest of the NT. Then the major themes of the OT.

Now, can I ask you the question; Do you place as much emphasis on His Eucharist, as you do the Bible?
 
MichaelP3 said:
I found it quite funny that Peter J referred to the poster as the Non-Catholic Steve B. That was a very funny remark by him. I was an observer. Sorry to have made you think I intended to say anything else.
Click to expand...
no worries, I was not concerned about your exchange. I appreciate the lighthearted moments in these discussions! 👍
In all honesty, your question is related to an argument/conversation/post I have never been part of or intended to be. 😊
Click to expand...
Why not? I assure you, there will NEVER be a profound unity achieved unless this matter is faced. That is my very strong opinion. 😉
 
MichaelP3 said:
I found it quite funny that Peter J referred to the poster as the Non-Catholic Steve B. That was a very funny remark by him. I was an observer. Sorry to have made you think I intended to say anything else.

In all honesty, your question is related to an argument/conversation/post I have never been part of or intended to be. 😊
Click to expand...
who is Steve b?
is it an inside joke or a pun ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top