A
agnes_therese
Guest
Since there’s no requirement to be “cleared” to read the Bible, there’s nothing to answer.
- Status
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
I was hoping for you to reply to my post cooter!
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
I observed this too, but maybe you as a Catholic, should take this on in your parish and discuss ways with other like minded parishoners or your priest how you feel about that. Research shows people are not people under 30 are not looking for a Church, they look for a family, where they can spiritually connect. As a young person, I can attest this is true for the most part.
Maybe your priest can guide you to ways to connect in your parish that you may not have thought about or considered.
E
elvisman
Guest
I laughed out loud myself when I read your coment.
Actually, GreyPilgrim presented the NASB interpretation while you provided the ESV - and they say essentially the very SAME thing, your arrogance notwithstanding . . .
E
elvisman
Guest
Thanks for the info. I will look into this.
**However, it *doesn’t *answer the statement I made. You claim to have taught in a seminary but refused to say where when called on it by Nicea and others - even throu Private Message. THAT was what I was talking about when I said that you shouldn’**t bring something up in a debate if you’re not willing to talk about it.
B
Ben_F
Guest
I left the Baptist Church, because in spite of reading scripture, I was still empty spiritually. There was so many questions that weren´t answered. I was deep in sin and didn´t know the way out. At least not in the Baptist Church. I got all the answers I needed from The Church that Jesus founded. I would never leave the Church. You should never say never, however, if I left the Church, I´d probably be a non-believer. God bless:thumbsup:
C
Contarini
Guest
I was careful to use a lowercase “t.” There are lots of ideas which are commonly accepted that turn out not to be a permanent part of the Tradition–or at least turn out to need reformulation in somewhat different terms. “Ressourcement”–a return to the sources of the Christian tradition, principally Scripture but also the teachings of the Fathers and other great saints and Doctors of the past–can help with that reformulation.
He wouldn’t have put it that way, as an Anglican. He would have said that he was trying to prove that the Church of England was fully Catholic and that the Church of Rome was merely one branch of the Catholic Church, and a branch whose teachings and practices needed purification at that.
Newman abandoned Protestantism in any kind of confessional, doctrinal sense long before he entered communion with Rome.
Furthermore, Newman was more of a historical theologian than a Biblical scholar per se (though the lines in English theological academia at that time were not as sharply drawn as they are today–which was a very good thing). Certainly (contra Newman’s popular quip about being deep in history) there are many learned Protestant church historians who have no inclination whatever toward Rome. But there are others who do–those of us who are driven by a deep desire for continuity and unity. I never disputed that these conversions happen. I think we’ve come a long way from the original point at issue.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Not true at all. Only a fraction of the Bible is in the Missal. The insistence by Catholics that the Missal covers the whole Bible only makes the rest of us suspicious that many of you have never bothered to read the Bible all the way through, or you’d know how much is left out of the lectionary.
It’s not. But in good Protestant exegetical preaching, the text is discussed in its exegetical context. I think this is what is missing in Catholic (and generally in liturgical) worship/preaching. Liturgical Christians often have a poor sense of just how the texts they hear in church fit into the books as a whole, and how the various books are related to each other historically and canonically. I run into this in the Episcopal Church as well. (I am a layperson, but I sometimes preach in my church when asked to by my priest.)
This is certainly true in many Protestant churches as well. By and large, the Reformed do the best job of expounding Scripture systematically, I think. The problem is that they expound it in terms of an unorthodox theological system. But Catholics (and the rest of us liturgical Christians as well) could learn a lot from them (or rather from the early Church and the medieval scholastics, both of whom were important inspirations for the Reformed) about the systematic exposition of Scripture.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, he’s definitely a Biblical scholar. (OK, he’s a Biblical theologian, but I wouldn’t say that makes him not a Biblical scholar–just a particular kind of Biblical scholar.) But as I said, his credentials as a Biblical scholar largely postdate his conversion, and his success within the academic guild has been limited both by the unfashionable (and quirky) conservatism of his views and by his laudable dedication to writing for non-scholars. (He’s nowhere near C. S. Lewis’s equal, but Lewis had the same “problem” as a literature scholar.)
Edwin
B
Bluegoat
Guest
From what I understand it was Branch Theory that failed for Newman. It seems obvious to me that it couldn’t be correct, but that may be because I’m a 21st century North American. THe problem that he found is not quite the same question that faces modern Anglicans and others, IMO.
As you say, although some convert, there are lots of Anglican, and Lutheran historians who don’t. The idea that real familiarity with history will make one Catholic doesn’t seem to hold water to me. I think it is common enough for particular kinds of Protestants to find history leads them out of, say. fundamentalism. But Catholicism isn’t the only possible destination.
J
JamestheOlder
Guest
Thank you for your statistics on the seminaries, Dave Noonan. It must have taken awhile to accumulate these.
Now that we have the information on the teaching of basic Scripture, let’s move to statistics on more advanced studies of Scripture required at Catholic seminaries: liturgy and the biblical basis for the Mass and the seven Sacraments. How many hours do these courses add to your totals?
Do you include the Scripture readings and homilies the seminarians are exposed to at daily Mass in the “study” of Scripture?
And, speaking of the liturgy, please estimate (or advise) the number of hours of instruction in, and daily recitation of, the Liturgy of the Hours. As you are probably aware, this liturgy is required of all Catholic clergy (and seminarians) on a daily basis. Please include in your statistics the daily Office of Readings, which not only includes Scripture from the Old and New Testaments, but also commentaries and homilies from the early Church Fathers. Many of the comms/homilies teach proper understanding of the Scriptures, according to the Church, so they could also be considered “Bible Studies”.
Your turn…
Now that we have the information on the teaching of basic Scripture, let’s move to statistics on more advanced studies of Scripture required at Catholic seminaries: liturgy and the biblical basis for the Mass and the seven Sacraments. How many hours do these courses add to your totals?
Do you include the Scripture readings and homilies the seminarians are exposed to at daily Mass in the “study” of Scripture?
And, speaking of the liturgy, please estimate (or advise) the number of hours of instruction in, and daily recitation of, the Liturgy of the Hours. As you are probably aware, this liturgy is required of all Catholic clergy (and seminarians) on a daily basis. Please include in your statistics the daily Office of Readings, which not only includes Scripture from the Old and New Testaments, but also commentaries and homilies from the early Church Fathers. Many of the comms/homilies teach proper understanding of the Scriptures, according to the Church, so they could also be considered “Bible Studies”.
Your turn…
N
Nicea325
Guest
And I laughed too when I read you believe Scripture is the highest authority…another man-made belief NO WHERE taught by Jesus!
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, you’ve said it, but you haven’t backed up your position with theological or historical or exegetical arguments. I have pointed out that the early Church knew nothing of this dichotomy–they did it all in a very long Sunday morning liturgy. Read some of the Fathers’ sermons–they are in-depth Biblical teaching. This is what the Protestant Reformers tried to return to, and this was one of their reforms that actually was in keeping with the Tradition and could serve as a model for Catholics. But, of course, people would complain. I understand the practical problems getting people to sit still for more than an hour. But for heaven’s sake don’t make some kind of virtue out of it. The Mass ought to be able to contain robust, detailed biblical teaching as well as the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, beautiful music, ceremonial, etc. If it doesn’t, that’s because of human weakness and not because of some kind of theological principle excluding in-depth Biblical teaching from the Mass.
If you think there is some such principle, where do you find it? Can you provide a church document, or a Biblical or patristic text, or some other source for your opinion?
Edwin
N
Nicea325
Guest
WRONG! Nice try! You simply want to equate a rite with a denomination, perhaps because it is a hard fact of life as a non-Catholic to swallow?
religious grouping (denomination) : a religious grouping within a faith that has its own system of organization
ceremonial act: a solemn ceremony or procedure customary to a community, especially a religious group
set procedure: a formal and established observance or practice
ceremonial way of proceeding: a system of ceremonial procedures
Catholic Rites are NOT denominations because they are all in UNION w/Rome.
C
Contarini
Guest
Were any of these prominent Protestant Biblical scholars? If you want to argue that they were somehow more “knowledgeable” than people who are actually renowned as Biblical scholars, what is your evidence for this?
None of these people were well-known in Protestant circles, as far as I know, before their conversions. Again, that doesn’t put them down, but the original claim requires some sort of backup beyond “here are a bunch of pretty smart people who became Catholics.”
I think scalp-hunting is unsavory no matter who practices it. But there are a number of scholars who have converted to Catholicism in recent years. Three names that comme immediately to mind are:
Robert Wilken
Francis Beckwith
Reinhard Hutter
All of these were at least somewhat prominent before their conversions. Richard John Neuhaus would be a somewhat older example. R. R. Reno perhaps wasn’t quite as well known as these others before his conversion, but he was an established scholar. And there are a number of more junior people, of course.
None of these folks were biblical scholars. They were philosophers, historians, or systematic theologians.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
We would have a more expeditious as well as a more courteous discussion if you deigned to inform us concerning this technical legal meaning, rather than simply taunting us with our ignorance.
It is possible that when the early Protestants claimed that Scripture was “sui ipsius interpres” they were using a term from Roman law. After all, some of them, like Calvin, were trained as lawyers. But again, since you haven’t actually explicated your position, it’s hard to have a substantive discussion.
Edwin
R
Revert_43
Guest
It’s about the Eucharist, period.
catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
N
nickybr38
Guest
Can I just say, as a former Protestant, that my biggest issue with the Protestant churches I attended (United, Baptist, Evangelical, Salvation Army, Pentecostal, etc) is that they NEVER mentioned Scripture? Most preachers would mention one or two bible verses in their sermons but after that they just shared their personal opinions and/or general Christian facts of life. I jumped from church to church seeking truth but none of them honored the Bible as much as the Catholic Church did.
At Mass the Scripture is quoted left and right. Whether or not they quote the entire Bible in three years is irrelevant. The fact that they quote Scripture THROUGHOUT the Mass, and that we, as a congregation, learn to quote Scripture as well is highly relevant to me.
I think the OP is generalizing horribly. I know plenty of Protestants who need more Bible study, and I know plenty of Catholics who need more Bible study. This isn’t a Catholic or Protestant issue, it’s a Christian issue.
That said, the Catholic Church places a HIGH value on Scripture and as someone else alluded, you cannot read more then a page of the Catechism without running into Scripture.
Now this is highly subjective, because different priests have different strengths, but my priest makes a point of explaining Scripture in his homily, and tying in the Scriptures we read on Sunday into his homily. It’s a refreshing change from the vapid sermons I heard in the Protestant churches I attended… but, that said, I’m sure there are priests with equally vapid homilies and ministers with equally meaningful and scripture full sermons. This is not an accurate judge of the Catholic Church OR Protestant churches on a whole because it is judging the individuals in charge of that particular parish.
When you sit down to judge a church as truthful or not perhaps you should look into what the church teaches instead of what individuals members of that church (whether clergy or not, laity or not) are professing. Because men are, after all, prone to error but the true measure of a church is what does the church as a whole profess to believe (mind you, many protestant churches are their own entity separate from any other denominations so sometimes the minister IS the sole voice of what that church believes).
At Mass the Scripture is quoted left and right. Whether or not they quote the entire Bible in three years is irrelevant. The fact that they quote Scripture THROUGHOUT the Mass, and that we, as a congregation, learn to quote Scripture as well is highly relevant to me.
I think the OP is generalizing horribly. I know plenty of Protestants who need more Bible study, and I know plenty of Catholics who need more Bible study. This isn’t a Catholic or Protestant issue, it’s a Christian issue.
That said, the Catholic Church places a HIGH value on Scripture and as someone else alluded, you cannot read more then a page of the Catechism without running into Scripture.
Now this is highly subjective, because different priests have different strengths, but my priest makes a point of explaining Scripture in his homily, and tying in the Scriptures we read on Sunday into his homily. It’s a refreshing change from the vapid sermons I heard in the Protestant churches I attended… but, that said, I’m sure there are priests with equally vapid homilies and ministers with equally meaningful and scripture full sermons. This is not an accurate judge of the Catholic Church OR Protestant churches on a whole because it is judging the individuals in charge of that particular parish.
When you sit down to judge a church as truthful or not perhaps you should look into what the church teaches instead of what individuals members of that church (whether clergy or not, laity or not) are professing. Because men are, after all, prone to error but the true measure of a church is what does the church as a whole profess to believe (mind you, many protestant churches are their own entity separate from any other denominations so sometimes the minister IS the sole voice of what that church believes).
C
Contarini
Guest
I agree with some of your earlier points–Catholics do indeed use “denomination” thoughtlessly, and many Protestant “denominations” are no more divided from each other than different Catholic “sui juris churches,” let alone the schismatic groups like the SSPX. However, the point you make here actually works against you. One of the great glories of Catholicism is that it has held together people with different views on predestination, while Protestants have split into rival (and in the past bitterly opposed) churches over this issue. Thomists and Molinists share the same Eucharist, worship in the same parishes, are subject to the same authority. To say “outside of Catholicism they would form different churches” is simply to make the Catholic apologists’ point for them.
This is false. Sometimes denominations come into being through a process that has nothing to do with Christians splitting from each other. But I wouldn’t say that “usually” this has been the case historically, and even where it has, this is only because of the existing splits. For instance, the denomination with which my institution is affiliated (the United Brethren) originated among German-speaking revivalists in the late 18th century (whether you count it as part of the First or Second GA is perhaps disputable). It originated when a Mennonite and a German Reformed pastor embraced each other as brothers in Christ. This led to the Mennonite being excommunicated by his church–the Reformed pastor was never actually expelled, but over time the communities affiliated with him organized as separate churches. Was this the result of “splitting” or not? Depends on how you parse it. However, 100 years later there *was *a split in the UB–the larger group wound up uniting with the Methodists, while the smaller group is still independent.
So the picture is complicated. But if Reformed and Mennonites and Methodists hadn’t all been separate groups in the first place, the UB wouldn’t exist. Once you get to a certain level of division, it becomes hard to see what counts as a split and what is just a reorganization, maybe even in some way a movement toward unity.
Not sure what you are talking about here.
As I said, it’s complicated, but I can certainly think of plenty of 19th-century denominations that were the results of splits.
Depends on what you mean by “healthy.” Sociologists like it because they’re mostly looking at numbers. But that’s not a theological consideration, is it?
I’m not quite sure what your criteria are here, since you give no specific examples or sources for your statistics.
You are making the valid point that in the modern American landscape, forming a new denomination may not be the result of a conscious decision to split with a former group. Often new denominations draw largely on unaffiliated people, or bring together loose pre-existing groups, etc. And many denominations have substantively the same doctrines. However, in fact Protestants do deal with doctrinal disagreement by splitting, and they continue to do so on a regular basis. And “church-hopping” allows Protestants to jump from one denomination to another (or one congregation to another, within or outside of denominations) looking for the “right fit.” This situation simply bears not the slightest resemblance to the ancient Christian understanding of the unity of the Church. It’s a travesty.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Could you please point to the place within these links where an authoritative source states that the Eucharist is not the place for in-depth Biblical teaching. Briefly glancing at the two articles, I see nothing of the kind. Perhaps I am missing something.
You seem to be creating a false dichotomy, as if exalting the Eucharist means downplaying exegetical preaching. As I have said, the practice of the Fathers clearly indicates otherwise. Do you deny that patristic sermons involved in-depth exegesis? Do you deny that this was the main way in which early Christians received Biblical instruction?
Small-group Bible studies are largely a Pietist invention, which you are ironically promoting as the Catholic alternative to the ancient practice of exgetical preaching! (I have nothing against small-group Bible studies, by the way.)
Edwin
- Status