B
BennyD
Guest
my girlfriend’s mom told me that she doesn’t have to read the bible because their priest interprets it for them
What exactly are you trying to say? That you have flown the space shuttle?Finding out the reading habits of Catholics from ex-Catholics is like trying to find out how a rocket is launched from a priest. If they had actually read the bible while in the Catholic Church, they would have never left it.
I’m sorry but I don’t believe you. This is not the words of a Catholic and I assume you were implying the girlfriend’s mom is Catholic. This statement does not reflect a Catholic knowledge of the difference between a priest and a bishop.my girlfriend’s mom told me that she doesn’t have to read the bible because their priest interprets it for them
Not quite true. Maybe true with a qualifier?Maria,
You are right there are many potential threads.
Do you realize how impossible the burden of proof is for me when it concerns the views of early church fathers. If they support the RC view, they can use it. If they do not, like you just did, they do not represent the Church.
I can show how much they differ and it will not matter to you.
True?
Just curious
Brian
Oh yes, i forgot, it matters that there is only one bishop per city because that is a later developing tradition/practice. If there is more than one bishop in Rome, how can you have a Bishop of Rome?
What exactly are you trying to say? That you have flown the space shuttle?![]()
Yes, and I’m sure all or most have been answered in other threads or in the tracts offered by Catholic Answers. And all are unconnected to the original question of the city of Rome vs the person of Peter.How do we know that he could pass the key to one individual?
How do we know that Peter thought he COULD have a successor in the formal sense that the RC says that he did?
Did the other apostles agree with this?
What is the historical evidence from the first century to back this view?
Where is the scriptural evidence that such a transfer would occur?
Which successor, Antioch or Rome?
Why did both Paul AND Peter hand the key…if this is what occured?
When did the church as a whole agree with the primacy of Peters successor and what is our historical evidence of that?
Why does Paul mention “pillars”?
Lets stop there.
So many questions…
You are on: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to do this as well. You seem to imply that such an exposition would result in significant differences - am I correct? We shall see. That, of course, is OK and to a certain extent expected - he remained Catholic, however, to his death and that will trump any percieved inconsistencies. It’s always easy to point out differences between an ECF and certain Catholic doctrine, and those differencies can seem significant - until they are compared to the glaring, irreconcilable differences that exist when compared to any other Christian church (except Orthodox)I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have a sustained thread comparing Polycarp to current RC belief.
thank you
Brian
I agree that any christian, whether Catholic or Protestant, has an obligation to study and learn the Scriptures. But I think you would concede that Protestants and Catholics disagree over the propriety of the Sunday Mass or Sunday Worship service as a place to teach the Word. The focus of the Catholic Mass is always the Eucharist, so Mass time devoted to instruction in the Scriptures is secondary (at best).I always see much ado made about the amount of Scripture that is read in Catholic services (or other liturgical churches for that matter such as Anglican). Now granted, this is a good thing. It is wonderful. But simply hearing the Word read is no substitute for having it taught. There is no substitute for personal study of the Word.
Sad but true. Good point Marquette.Raised in a Baptist church, I always heard that “Catholics don’t even take their Bibles to church.” Basically, that was saying that they knew nothing about the Bible and that the Catholic church wasn’t based on the Bible either.
Well, since I’m in RCIA, you must know I no longer believe that. And, I also can tell you that even though most protestants take their Bible to church, that doesn’t necessarily mean they ever read it except for AT church, and they don’t necessarily follow the Bible teachings. It’s like anything else, there are Bible readers and there are not Bible readers, in all denominations.
Alright, I will concede this point. But, don’t you think that the priest could at least do some study of one of the four lectionary passages of the day and in 10 or 15 minutes put some meat on the table for the people to feed from (in additon to the Eucharist)? I rarely hear even this. Usually there is not even milk put out, just water at best.The focus of the Catholic Mass is always the Eucharist, so Mass time devoted to instruction in the Scriptures is secondary (at best).
My priest always talks about the day’s readings during his homily. Perhaps, I just have an uncommonly good priest. Now he isn’t a fire and brimstone type pastor but I always learn something from him.Alright, I will concede this point. But, don’t you think that the priest could at least do some study of one of the four lectionary passages of the day and in 10 or 15 minutes put some meat on the table for the people to feed from (in additon to the Eucharist)? I rarely hear even this. Usually there is not even milk put out, just water at best.
The Word of God is food for the soul just as the Eucharist is. Is not Christ present in the Word as well? Perhaps not in the same sense as in the Eucharist, but grace comes from the Word being made into a living substance in the soul by the Holy Spirit.
Any member of the clergy has an obligation before God to rightly divide the Word of Truth.even if it is in the context of the Mass in a 10 minute homily.
Then you should go to a different parish. Usually, the priests at my parish can weave the three readings into their homily. Certainly, they cannot elaborate to the extent possible in an hour sermon, but they do a very good job in the time alloted, in my opinion. I think it’s also fair to add that the purpose of a homily is not the same as a bible study. A homily is for moral instruction and guiding the faithful in their personal relationship with Christ, than it is about doctrinal instruction.Alright, I will concede this point. But, don’t you think that the priest could at least do some study of one of the four lectionary passages of the day and in 10 or 15 minutes put some meat on the table for the people to feed from (in additon to the Eucharist)? I rarely hear even this. Usually there is not even milk put out, just water at best.
Christ is not present in scripture in the same Real way that He is in the Eucharist. So, it’s not the same thing. I respectfully disagree with your comparison of bible readings to Real food. The difference is as great as talking with a person versus listening to a recorded message.The Word of God is food for the soul just as the Eucharist is. Is not Christ present in the Word as well? Perhaps not in the same sense as in the Eucharist, but grace comes from the Word being made into a living substance in the soul by the Holy Spirit.
I thought protestants believed that anyone could pick up a bible and rightly understand what is necessary for salvation without a priest or deacon to tell them how to interpret?Any member of the clergy has an obligation before God to rightly divide the Word of Truth.even if it is in the context of the Mass in a 10 minute homily.
I would certainly encourage your girl friend’s mom to read Holy Scripture and I know the Church does encourage us as Catholics to read scripture.my girlfriend’s mom told me that she doesn’t have to read the bible because their priest interprets it for them
thanks trick. I will!!I would certainly encourage your girl friend’s mom to read Holy Scripture and I know the Church does encourage us as Catholics to read scripture.
Trick