Originally Posted by M_Oliver
I only need to watch about five minutes of a mass to see dozens of “traditions” that have ABSOLUTELY no basis in Scripture. And I’ll guarantee that the “traditions” that Paul speaks of are REJECTED by the churches of men.
I moved this one because it was off the topic of the thread. Now, can you please explain to me what you saw in Mass that had no basis in scripture?
It is not explicit in the way that some things Christians accept as true are explicit - there are no “proof-texts” for it as a whole (not this is any loss BTW) - but, the themes in it are all in the Bible. And a good case can be made for it, from Scripture alone, once those themes are put together.
The Bible gives a “portrait” of the Mass - one brush-stroke is not a portrait, nor are fifty, or a hundred; but put all of them together, & the portrait emerges. So with the Biblical support for the Mass.
It may be that not every last detail is in the Bible - but the Mass is there nonetheless; rather in the way that, once a portrait has reached a certain stage, it becomes clear that even though it is incomplete, it is a portrait of an old man, & not a painting of a herd of elephants. Old men don’t have trunks - so if people were to insist that the picture is not a portrait, but a free composition depicting African wildlife (& there may be reasons to think that), they would be wrong: even though trunks are every bit as grey as some mens’ suits. We have helps in seeing the picture that other Christians don’t - not because we are “better” than others, but because we are “better off”: the difference between the two, is boundless, & is to be ascribed to God’s mercy; not to us.
For example: we are helped by something called the “analogy of faith”, which acts as a guide for our theological thinking (it’s not a purely Catholic thing BTW - the more theologically-inclined non-Catholic Churches have their own). Negatively, it helps us to know that certain ideas don’t fit into Catholic theology; positively, it helps us to see how they might fit. It’s like a set square - it’s not a straight line, but it helps us to draw them; which means that it helps us to “join the dots” between one belief & another.
There are difficulties & objections, certainly - but that’s equally true of the Biblical case for the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, or for the Deity of Christ, or for just about anything else that Evangelical Protestants believe. That in itself doesn’t & can’t “prove” that the Mass is Biblical; it’s not meant to, & nothing can, because faith does not come from human arguments, but by the Grace of God. The point is not that we can “prove” our faith true, but that it is no more “unBiblical” than many beliefs which Evangelical Protestants accept as Biblical.
The Mass - the Catholic understanding of it BTW; not misconceptions about it, whether ours or those of other people - has a basis in the Bible, & more than a basis. It’s an immense subject, so there is plenty that the Bible might be expected to say about it; & it does
##
