The things that you’re liable to read in the Bible…

[BrianH]

Hey Brian,

I daresay your last statement above is true but do the folks who lay claim to having Authority actually have the right to make such a claim?

Right based upon…?
I am just trying to ascertain your presuppositions in this area. Because you are an evangelical, I am trying to find out if you have accepted Apostolic Succession or what exactly.

In Protestantism, anyone can claim that just about anything is true and such claims necessarily go uncontested because there is no mechanism within Protestantism for combating error that is presented as truth.

There is not anything of this sort because there is not a Protestant Church. There are lots of authority in several denominations. Like any Christian denomination or group, the question is what IS that authority. If as an evangelical, you have accepted Apostolic Succession (a radical change unless you are an evangelical Anglican or some such group) as a basis for authority, you have several groups whose claims to this you must examine. Only then, can you come to the conclusion that you have accepted the correct authority.

That isn’t the case with the Catholic Church, is it? It has a visible unity for everybody to see – unity of administration and unity of doctrine –and it has disciplinary procedures, too.

Sure they do. And about 2000 other groups. It is rare for any group not to have unity of administration(Christian Science shreds anyone in this area) and as far as unity of doctrine…I think we could look to other groups that more unified than Catholicism which has a range from highly liberal to traditionalists.

Don’t you agree that the complete unity i.e. the oneness Christ prayed would be brought about is likely to be a continuing characteristic of the Church He founded?

So I’m slowly coming to the challenge of meeting this question:

I have spent a fair amount of time studying history. Where you see oneness, others may not.

Doesn’t the Catholic Church with its visible unity of organization and doctrine look much more like the Church Christ founded than any other since it appears to represent the fulfillment of the prayer He prayed in John 17?

No. I do not think so at all. If I accept the presuppositons of Apostolic Succession and so forth, I cannot imagine I would pick Catholicism over some of the Orthodox groups. Since you asked, not trying to pick a fight.

Feel free to give an honest answer to that question if you feel so inclined (let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ be ‘No’). Apologies for the long posts, by the way – but I’ve a lot on my mind just now.

Grace and peace,
Mick

My answers…are always honest

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hey Brian,

I daresay your last statement above is true but do the folks who lay claim to having Authority actually have the right to make such a claim? The people who most crave power are usually the least qualified to have it. The scenario in Protestantism seems to bear out that idea. In Protestantism, anyone can claim that just about anything is true and such claims necessarily go uncontested because there is no mechanism within Protestantism for combating error that is presented as truth. That isn’t the case with the Catholic Church, is it? It has a visible unity for everybody to see – unity of administration and unity of doctrine –and it has disciplinary procedures, too.

Perhaps you recall what Christ said when He prayed the prayer that is recorded in John 17? He said:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Don’t you agree that the complete unity i.e. the oneness Christ prayed would be brought about is likely to be a continuing characteristic of the Church He founded?

So I’m slowly coming to the challenge of meeting this question:

Doesn’t the Catholic Church with its visible unity of organization and doctrine look much more like the Church Christ founded than any other since it appears to represent the fulfillment of the prayer He prayed in John 17?

Feel free to give an honest answer to that question if you feel so inclined (let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ be ‘No’). Apologies for the long posts, by the way – but I’ve a lot on my mind just now.

Grace and peace,
Mick

hi SSteacher.
have you ever been to the Mass? hope you have checked the webpage i gave you.

Peace onto you.

 

[sheila0405]

Yes, you’re right. But are there any substantial differences between a Methodist and a Baptist in the way that each interprets Scripture? I respectfully submit that there are none.

It is not true that Baptists and Methodists interpret the Bible in the same manner. Baptists use hermeneutics, and are literal in their interpretations. The fact that Methodists and Baptists are diametrically opposed in certain areas, such as infant baptism and eternal security, shows that they are indeed not interpreting the Scriptures in the same manner. The Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible. He is the Spirit of Truth, and cannot contradict Himself. Therefore He alone can interpret the Bible. The Holy Catholic Church, I believe, is the original Church established by Christ, entrusted to the Apostles, and handed down without error the correct teachings of our Lord. This includes the Church’s understanding of holy writ.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Sheila,

It is not true that Baptists and Methodists interpret the Bible in the same manner. Baptists use hermeneutics, and are literal in their interpretations. The fact that Methodists and Baptists are diametrically opposed in certain areas, such as infant baptism and eternal security, shows that they are indeed not interpreting the Scriptures in the same manner.

I must apologize for not making clear what I’m driving at. I’m suggesting that all the people (including the people who have grouped themselves into denominations and Bible Churches) who interpret the Bible using post–Reformation presuppositions, priorities and parameters all refuse to recognize the Authority claimed in this area by the pre–Reformation Church and even reject the pre–Reformation Canon. So it’s in that sense that I’m seeing Baptists and Methodists in the same category. Methodists gather together and identify with each other because they are agreed upon what certain texts and passages in the Bible mean. Baptists do the same thing. And Baptists and Methodists are of course agreed that there are only 66 books in the Bible.

However, on any number of issues, a Baptist might disagree with a Methodist about what something found in the Bible actually means. The reason for this, as I see it, is because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura delivers discordant “interpretations of truth” thus confirming that objective truth cannot be discerned by employing a subjective method. Moreover, the doctrine precludes adjudication on disputes because the doctrine, by its very nature, blesses every single interpretation however contradictory and/or convoluted those interpretations might be.

This means two Protestants might read their Bibles together following which one Protestant concludes one thing on a certain issue and the other Protestant comes to understand the complete opposite on that same issue. Does at least one of those Protestants hold a faulty view? Absolutely. But how could anybody say for certain which one it might be given the framework in which both have agreed to operate? Indeed, it’s quite possible that both of them could be wrong. Most Protestants accept that nobody is infallible (some of them think they are, of course, but they’re in a completely different category).

A classic example of the unavoidable impasse is seen within the disagreement inside Protestant Christendom over the issue of capital punishment. This is no trifling issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death. And if one acknowledges that it’s a moral issue, then one must also acknowledge there must be a right and a wrong about it, which God wishes His people to recognize, believe and then act upon.

Yet Protestant Christians are sharply divided on the issue. Baptists are usually for it. Methodists are usually against it. Both sides are certain they’re right. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their guiding authority. Both sides claim the Bible endorses their respective positions. And both sides fail to see that they are applying that claim not to the Bible but to their own disputed and unverified understanding of it. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes such scenarios inevitable.

The Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible. He is the Spirit of Truth, and cannot contradict Himself. Therefore He alone can interpret the Bible. The Holy Catholic Church, I believe, is the original Church established by Christ, entrusted to the Apostles, and handed down without error the correct teachings of our Lord. This includes the Church’s understanding of holy writ.

That’s rather deftly written. I find myself unable to disagree with you. To do so would be to suggest I know better than the Holy Spirit. So I’ll continue with my inquiry into Catholicism and with my prayers, too.

Thanks ever so much for your contribution.

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

hi SSteacher.
I hope you have checked the webpage i gave you.

Peace onto you.

Hey wisdomseeker,

I certainly did check out the webpage you suggested. Thanks. I’m sorry I didn’t acknowledge your help and had to be reminded to say thank you. Indeed, I’ve checked out all the websites that I’ve been pointed toward by people who want to helpful.

So, thank you, everybody, who provided me with a link.

Here’s the link wisdomseeker gave me. If you’re an inquirer into Catholicism, as I am, and you’re reading this post, feel free to check it out.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg…/m3/4mrko.html

Have you ever been to the Mass?

Peace onto you.

Yes, I have.

I visited a Catholic Church about 15 years ago on a Sunday morning. I took my son, Joey, with me. After the Mass was ended we waited until most of the people had left intending to have a word with the priest. He had gone to the back of the church and was engaged in conversation with two elderly women. So we stepped to the side intending to wait until he had finished.

Suddenly, he turned toward us and asked me in a fairly irritated voice what I wanted. I told him that if he had any written material about Catholicism I’d be interested in buying it.

“Well, we haven’t,” he said somewhat brusquely and with a sneer turned back to the women and they continued where they’d left off.

Joey and I made our exit. As we walked out into the street Joey, who was about 14 years old at the time, said out loud exactly what I’d been thinking:

“Boy, he was rude!”

We never went back. Instead we became Evangelical Protestants (but not until 8 years ago).

Prior to that, I’d have to go back to 1970s London for my last connection with Catholicism. I worked with a guy who was a Catholic and he told me about an organization called the Society of Saint Pius X that arranged for a Tridentine Mass to be celebrated at the Great Western Hotel every Sunday morning (for which they parted with 150 quid). He invited me to come with him, explaining that the “Official” Catholic Church had thrown out its 400–year–old Liturgy for a sort of pop music Mass and the Society of Saint Pius X was sticking to the Old Faith and the commensurate way of worship.

I went along to the Great Western Hotel (which is adjacent to Paddington main line railway station – where Paddington Bear was found) and ended up getting a little involved with that group. Their local hero was a man named Michael Davies who was a primary school (English equivalent of elementary school) teacher and an articulate writer who was in effect an apologist for the Society. I’ve still got some of his books, as it happens. It turned out that Michael lived quite near me (I was living south of the river at the time) so I used to drive Michael and his family to the Great Western Hotel every Sunday morning in my Hillman Hunter (quite a nice motor). When we got back to Michael’s house, I’d play chess with one of Michael’s sons (at which I beat him up nearly every time, I’m pleased to report).

I eventually decided that the Society of Saint Pius X was perhaps going off at a bit of tangent. So I left thoughts of religion far behind and did what all Englishmen do rather well – go down the pub on a frequent basis (on some evenings I had to walk home with my head tilted back in case I spilled any). I fell out of touch with Michael after I rejected the Society but I liked him very much indeed and I was so sorry to hear of his death several years ago.

Because of my friendship with Michael Davies I soon got the hang of what was going on. And I thought that he (and the Society) had a valid case. I seem to recall that Michael’s view was that the present pope was a somewhat liberal voice at the time of the Second Vatican Council (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) and went along with the rest of Dutch and German Catholic churchman as they set about turning the Mass into a religious version of Ready, Steady, Go! (the British version of American Bandstand). If Michael had that right, then the pope has had a change of mind. And as far I’m concerned, that’s a good thing. The Tridentine Mass, I remember, was celebrated in a very reverent way. I didn’t think the revised Mass had anything reverent about it.

But I’ve also been inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy over the past two years and I’ve attended the Divine Liturgy in English. I found it in some ways reminiscent of the Tridentine Mass but, on the whole, it seems to me that the Divine Liturgy is more beautiful.

So, I’ve recently began my inquiry into Catholicism on these boards. I’ve started two threads to try to ascertain what might be going inside Catholicism in respect of worship but both threads have gone down like a lead balloon. I daresay I shall eventually visit a Catholic church but I’m fearful that I shall be very disappointed. If the American Catholic Church has slung out the ethereal in favor of the material, as has happened in Evangelical Protestant worship, I shall probably turn to face the East. But I’m trying to keep an open mind and think through my objections and difficulties apropos Catholicism before I actually go to Mass and approach a priest. Obviously, if I get the same kind of treatment that I got 15 years ago the matter will settle itself.

Cheerfully,
Mick

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m sorry if I haven’t made clear my difficulty. It is that the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura reversed the relationship between Scripture and Church, elevating the Bible above the Church. The variation of Sola Scriptura that is sometimes referred to as Prima Scriptura or the Wesleyan Quadrilateral does the same thing. That is why there is no doctrinal unity in Protestantism. And therein lies my difficulty.

I accept your assertion that there is disagreement among Catholic biblical scholars. However, since the mark of a true Catholic is to do as the Catholic Church teaches, both ordinary Catholics and Catholics who are Bible scholars follow the teaching of the Magisterium. This means that all Catholics, including Catholic Bible scholars, can fall back on the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, because they do not recognize any authority except for the Bible, have no teaching authority to fall back on so they often fall over. Tomorrow is another day, which means there’s every chance of a new doctrine being introduced into Protestant Christendom. This has happened, hasn’t it? Protestant Bible scholars aren’t answerable to anybody – no Protestant is – and the result is that error runs rampant within Protestantism. But within the confines of a protesting theological system that endorses every subjective interpretation of truth there can be no mechanism for authoritatively defining error let alone actually doing something about it. One can only protest about the problem to nobody in particular – and, sure enough, nobody listens. Surely Christ didn’t intend for this kind of inadequacy and confusion to prevail?

I daresay most ordinary Protestants would secretly like to have what Catholics and Orthodox Christians have. It is the certainty – the clarity. I feel sure that when those programs with titles like “Ask The Pastor” are aired, it isn’t Catholics or Orthodox Christians who are calling in desperate to get their Bible questions answered. It’s the Protestants.

So my point is that I’m fed up with being my own pope. That’s why I’ve joined this forum – to check out Catholicism. Why are you here?

Grace and peace,
Mick

But - Catholic doctrine deals with different issues from Biblical scholarship. No matter how orthodox one’s Catholicism, CD does nothing to shed light on questions such as:

• which reading if several is best supported by the available evidence
• whether a commentary attributed to Saint So-&-So was written by him
• whether a text is pseudo-historical or historical
• whether a deity in an OT text came from Syria or from Egypt; or is present in the OT text at all
  There are countless questions of these kinds & more, to which the Teaching Church gives no answers; nor does it intend to need to. It can say the Bible is Christological in its purpose - & does; but that does not tell us anything about (say) whether Psalm 72 was always a single Psalm or a combination of two Psalms. That sort of thing is for the professional scholars - they are the ones with the academic equipment, with the knowledge of detail that enables them to make an intelligent decision on such matters. If we want to know in what respects that or any other Psalm or text in the Bible might be influenced by Assyrian or Egyptian or any other models, the Teaching Church is not the authority on such questions. It’s an authority on other aspects of the Bible, such as its use & character in the Church. But not on critical questions. It leaves those to the scholars.

An example:

• The TC can say Isaiah 9.6 finds its fullest realisation in Christ - while
• the scholars are the ones equipped to compare the titles in it with those of Pharaohs; & to debate whether it is Isaianic in date, & similar questions.
  The Church’s authority can forbid public discussion of CQs - but only among Catholics; it can’t bind other Christians, nor Jews; so if they agree with its positions, that won’t be because it holds & requires those positions.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hey wisdomseeker,

I certainly did check out the webpage you suggested. Thanks. I’m sorry I didn’t acknowledge your help and had to be reminded to say thank you. Indeed, I’ve checked out all the websites that I’ve been pointed toward by people who want to helpful.

I visited a Catholic Church about 15 years ago on a Sunday morning. I took my son, Joey, with me. After the Mass was ended we waited until most of the people had left intending to have a word with the priest. He had gone to the back of the church and was engaged in conversation with two elderly women. So we stepped to the side intending to wait until he had finished.

Suddenly, he turned toward us and asked me in a fairly irritated voice what I wanted. I told him that if he had any written material about Catholicism I’d be interested in buying it.

“Well, we haven’t,” he said somewhat brusquely and with a sneer turned back to the women and they continued where they’d left off.

Joey and I made our exit. As we walked out into the street Joey, who was about 14 years old at the time, said out loud exactly what I’d been thinking:

“Boy, he was rude!”

We never went back. Instead we became Evangelical Protestants (but not until 8 years ago).

Prior to that, I’d have to go back to 1970s London for my last connection with Catholicism. I worked with a guy who was a Catholic and he told me about an organization called the Society of Saint Pius X that arranged for a Tridentine Mass to be celebrated at the Great Western Hotel every Sunday morning (for which they parted with 150 quid). He invited me to come with him, explaining that the “Official” Catholic Church had thrown out its 400–year–old Liturgy for a sort of pop music Mass and the Society of Saint Pius X was sticking to the Old Faith and the commensurate way of worship.

I went along to the Great Western Hotel (which is adjacent to Paddington main line railway station – where Paddington Bear was found) and ended up getting a little involved with that group. Their local hero was a man named Michael Davies who was a primary school (English equivalent of elementary school) teacher and an articulate writer who was in effect an apologist for the Society. I’ve still got some of his books, as it happens. It turned out that Michael lived quite near me (I was living south of the river at the time) so I used to drive Michael and his family to the Great Western Hotel every Sunday morning in my Hillman Hunter (quite a nice motor). When we got back to Michael’s house, I’d play chess with one of Michael’s sons (at which I beat him up nearly every time, I’m pleased to report).

I eventually decided that the Society of Saint Pius X was perhaps going off at a bit of tangent. So I left thoughts of religion far behind and did what all Englishmen do rather well – go down the pub on a frequent basis (on some evenings I had to walk home with my head tilted back in case I spilled any). I fell out of touch with Michael after I rejected the Society but I liked him very much indeed and I was so sorry to hear of his death several years ago.

I’ve also been inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy over the past two years and I’ve attended the Divine Liturgy in English. I found it in some ways reminiscent of the Tridentine Mass but, on the whole, it seems to me that the Divine Liturgy is more beautiful.

So, I’ve recently began my inquiry into Catholicism on these boards. I’ve started two threads to try to ascertain what might be going inside Catholicism in respect of worship but both threads have gone down like a lead balloon. I daresay I shall eventually visit a Catholic church but I’m fearful that I shall be very disappointed. If the American Catholic Church has slung out the ethereal in favor of the material, as has happened in Evangelical Protestant worship, I shall probably turn to face the East. But I’m trying to keep an open mind and think through my objections and difficulties apropos Catholicism before I actually go to Mass and approach a priest. Obviously, if I get the same kind of treatment that I got 15 years ago the matter will settle itself.

Cheerfully,
Mick

i am pleased though that you remain persisitent in finding the Truth of worshiping our God.

dont give up. remember that in the Kingdom of Heaven there is weeds and wheat. this Kingdom spoken of here is the one here on earth , (the Church). for we know there is no weeds in Heaven.

call few of the parishes around you until you find one who is faithful in worshiping our Lord and the priest is humble.

i understand that VII brought much confusion into the Church. the misinterpretation by the liberals who took over and brought much shame to the Church. for forty years the Church has been going through the desert, suffering, and fighting those who want to drag down the Church Jesus promise the gates of hell would not prevail against. as Catholis we believe and trust on our Lord and His promise.
we look not upon the sins of individuals but on the faith of the
Church and the promise of our Lord that no matter what, when the devil attacks Jesus Church, our Lord soon lift her up again and again. history has proven this.
May the Peace of our Lord and God the Father be with you on your journey.

"Our god hears the cry of the poor."

 

[SSTeacher]

i am pleased though that you remain persisitent in finding the Truth of worshiping our God.

I can do no other.

dont give up. remember that in the Kingdom of Heaven there is weeds and wheat. this Kingdom spoken of here is the one here on earth , (the Church). for we know there is no weeds in Heaven.

Yes, I’ll remember.

call few of the parishes around you until you find one who is faithful in worshiping our Lord and the priest is humble.

To be honest, that makes my heart sink. Except for the word “priest,” it’s exactly the sort of advice one can hear given by a Protestant to another Protestant – in the Bible–thumping South, anyway.

i understand that VII brought much confusion into the Church.

But the actual Vatican II documents didn’t change anything, did they? So the official line, as I understand it, is that it wasn’t the Council that brought the confusion into the Church -– assuming that there actually is confusion.

the misinterpretation by the liberals who took over

You sound very much like those Catholic Traditionalists I knew back in the 1970s.

and brought much shame to the Church.

Shame? Really?

for forty years the Church has been going through the desert, suffering, and fighting those who want to drag down the Church

I admire your passion.

Jesus promise the gates of hell would not prevail against. as Catholis we believe and trust on our Lord and His promise. we look not upon the sins of individuals but on the faith of the Church and the promise of our Lord that no matter what, when the devil attacks Jesus Church, our Lord soon lift her up again and again. history has proven this.

So I guess you wouldn’t describe yourself as a Liberal Catholic, then?

May the Peace of our Lord and God the Father be with you on your journey.

How kind you are. May you, too, acquire the Spirit of Peace and thousands around you will be saved.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can do no other.

Yes, I’ll remember.

To be honest, that makes my heart sink. Except for the word “priest,” it’s exactly the sort of advice one can hear given by a Protestant to another Protestant – in the Bible–thumping South, anyway.

i dont mean that way. but because of the VII many priests begin doing things according to the wrong interpretation of the document and went the wrong way. many Catholics dont aprove it. but we must be obedient to the Church and know that this all will end.

But the actual Vatican II documents didn’t change anything, did they? So the official line, as I understand it, is that it wasn’t the Council that brought the confusion into the Church -– assuming that there actually is confusion.

no. it didnt. it is a bit complicated. it is dificult to explain.
latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

You sound very much like those Catholic Traditionalists I knew back in the 1970s.

not quite. but i have to admit that i dont like some of the changes that took place after the council which was not supposed to happen. i like the latin hymns and would like to see it back.

Shame? Really?

**i am talking about some of the issues we faced along the years.
you know, with many Catholics supporting abortion and other issues contrary to what the Church teaches. **

I admire your passion.

****you can only imagine what is like to be part of the Church built by Christ Himself and going through the Sacred Scripture with the Church. you have to experience yourself. **** just visiolize being the hebrew back then and you understand a little about Catholics.

So I guess you wouldn’t describe yourself as a Liberal Catholic, then?

** No i wouldnt. i consider myself a Catholic. i always been a Catholic. and i want to be faithful to the Holy See and the teachings of the Church although many times i have failed. **

How kind you are. May you, too, acquire the Spirit of Peace and thousands around you will be saved.

Thank you.

** so be it. (Que assim seja.)**

"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…

 

[SSTeacher]

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

wisdomseeker,

The above link that you kindly provided was a brief talk given by the Deputy Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales who used as his material, for the most part at least, the writings of my old friend, Michael Davies.

And it all came flooding back. I’m not sure that it is that complicated. Not really.

I have a question. Below, I’ve reproduced a few sentences from that talk. I’m sure this bit must be from Michael’s writings because I can clearly recall him going on about the new Mass – the Novus Ordo – and I particularly remember him telling me about a Marxist Mass and a Clown Mass. I recall that I thought he was pulling my leg and that it took me a few moments to realize that he was dead serious. Anyway here’s the quote:

"The new freedom that priests were given when celebrating this new order of Mass gave rise around the world to the most bizarre and often profane celebrations. We have had to suffer Rock’n’Roll Masses, Marxist Masses, Gay Masses, Clown Masses where priests dressed as clowns have leaped out of trunks to celebrate April Fools weekend. We have had two puppets named Noah and Norah being married during Mass. On Palm Sunday, to add realism, we have had a man riding a donkey down the centre aisle and, to cater for the ladies, a woman riding a pony at Christmas. One particular priest sits his dog on the sanctuary during Mass and it gives its paw during the exchange of peace before Communion."

And my question is this:

Does any of this sort of stuff still go on in some parts of Catholic Christendom?

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker,

The above link that you kindly provided was a brief talk given by the Deputy Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales who used as his material, for the most part at least, the writings of my old friend, Michael Davies.

And it all came flooding back. I’m not sure that it is that complicated. Not really.

I have a question. Below, I’ve reproduced a few sentences from that talk. I’m sure this bit must be from Michael’s writings because I can clearly recall him going on about the new Mass – the Novus Ordo – and I particularly remember him telling me about a Marxist Mass and a Clown Mass. I recall that I thought he was pulling my leg and that it took me a few moments to realize that he was dead serious. Anyway here’s the quote:

"The new freedom that priests were given when celebrating this new order of Mass gave rise around the world to the most bizarre and often profane celebrations. We have had to suffer Rock’n’Roll Masses, Marxist Masses, Gay Masses, Clown Masses where priests dressed as clowns have leaped out of trunks to celebrate April Fools weekend. We have had two puppets named Noah and Norah being married during Mass. On Palm Sunday, to add realism, we have had a man riding a donkey down the centre aisle and, to cater for the ladies, a woman riding a pony at Christmas. One particular priest sits his dog on the sanctuary during Mass and it gives its paw during the exchange of peace before Communion."

And my question is this:

Does any of this sort of stuff still go on in some parts of Catholic Christendom?

Grace and peace,
Mick

i am not aware of such things happening in the Church. but i do see some Churches have adopted some liberalism.
but as we know the Catholic Church is one in all the world. they teach the same no matter where you are in the world it is suppost to be the same. it should not be different.

for example i have seen CC that have no kneelers. people playing guitars and so on. these are some of the issues that conservative Catholics have. i try to stay away from these if i can.
yourself said how rude the priest was to you. this is not suppost to happen.

about VII, we do know that modernists like theologians and others did misenterpret VII and brought much changes into the Church to the point that the holy father John VI said: “the smoke of satan has entered the Church.”

but we are confident that the Church is comming back to what VII really meant to be. true ecumenism without compromising the Truth.

Peace onto you.

 

[SSTeacher]

i am not aware of such things happening in the Church. but i do see some Churches have adopted some liberalism.
but as we know the Catholic Church is one in all the world. they teach the same no matter where you are in the world it is suppost to be the same. it should not be different.

for example i have seen CC that have no kneelers. people playing guitars and so on. these are some of the issues that conservative Catholics have. i try to stay away from these if i can.
yourself said how rude the priest was to you. this is not suppost to happen.

about VII, we do know that modernists like theologians and others did misenterpret VII and brought much changes into the Church to the point that the holy father John VI said: “the smoke of satan has entered the Church.”

but we are confident that the Church is comming back to what VII really meant to be. true ecumenism without compromising the Truth.

Peace onto you.

wisdomseeker,

Thanks for being so helpful. One last question. Have you ever visited an Orthodox Church and experienced the Divine Liturgy?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker,

Thanks for being so helpful. One last question. Have you ever visited an Orthodox Church and experienced the Divine Liturgy?

Curiously,
Mick

no. i have not. but i have no problem in doing so. the dialogue between the Orthodox and CC seems to be going well.

i pray that our union come very soon. we have grieved our Lord for too long and we have suffered the consequences.

why do you ask? are you thinking about going to visit one? i heard it is beautiful.

**
Cyprian
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). ***

 

[SSTeacher]

Hey wisdomseeker,

no. i have not. but i have no problem in doing so. the dialogue between the Orthodox and CC seems to be going well.

i pray that our union come very soon. we have grieved our Lord for too long and we have suffered the consequences.

why do you ask? are you thinking about going to visit one? i heard it is beautiful.

I’ve been to the Divine Liturgy perhaps several dozen times and it is indeed very beautiful. I’ve been thinking about becoming an Orthodox Christian since the beginning of 2006 and up until about four months ago I was sure that it was where I was headed. But then the question of a “Visible Authority” intruded in upon me and I faltered and became uncertain. Then I decided to check out Catholicism. So I’ve been hovering in this Non–Catholic Religions section of the forum for the last month. My Orthodox friends have told me that the road to Orthodoxy is often a long one. I believe them.

The reason I asked is because it seems to me that you love your Catholic faith but are in anguish over the secularism that has apparently crept into the Catholic Church. So perhaps experiencing the Divine Liturgy might provide some solace? I’m certainly not trying to coax you away from Catholicism but one visit wouldn’t hurt (just to say you’d experienced it) and it might fortify you spiritually and ease the pain that you’re so obviously feeling. But if you’d rather not deviate from your routine, here’s a link to an Orthodox website that I often visit and which you might also find encouraging:

ancientfaith.com

I particularly like Matthew Gallatin’s, “Pilgrims from Paradise” approach.

May God bless you,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hey wisdomseeker,

I’ve been to the Divine Liturgy perhaps several dozen times and it is indeed very beautiful. I’ve been thinking about becoming an Orthodox Christian since the beginning of 2006 and up until about four months ago I was sure that it was where I was headed. But then the question of a “Visible Authority” intruded in upon me and I faltered and became uncertain. Then I decided to check out Catholicism. So I’ve been hovering in this Non–****Catholic Religions section of the forum for the last month. My Orthodox friends have told me that the road to Orthodoxy is often a long one. I believe them.

The reason I asked is because it seems to me that you love your Catholic faith but are in anguish over the secularism that has apparently crept into the Catholic Church. So perhaps experiencing the Divine Liturgy might provide some solace? I’m certainly not trying to coax you away from Catholicism but one visit wouldn’t hurt (just to say you’d experienced it) and it might fortify you spiritually and ease the pain that you’re so obviously feeling. But if you’d rather not deviate from your routine, here’s a link to an Orthodox website that I often visit and which you might also find encouraging:

ancientfaith.com

I particularly like Matthew Gallatin’s, “Pilgrims from Paradise” approach.

May God bless you,
Mick

oh no. i wouldnt leave the Church.
i suffer with the Church. i am not to judge no one. i trust in Jesus.

like you said the question of authority. we must follow the chair of St Peter. i wouldnt dare to abandon the authority instituted by Christ Himself.

i understand that “those from outside of the CC look in is not so pretty, but once inside that beauty is seen.” Archbishop Sheen

if you understand the history of the Hebrew people, you will see that God never abandoned His people. He did punish those who were dissobedient. Jesus built His Church and we know that He never abandoned His people. He made a covenant with the Church. we must obey the Church even when some try to make the Church look bad.

we remember the saints of the Church and those who continue to abind by the laws of God in the Church and leave the judgement to our Holy God.

I have the sense that you are in the right track when speaking of the issue such as authority. remember when our Lord said: I will not leave you orphans. He didnt.

Peace onto you.

advent prayer.

**O come, Desire of Nations, bind
All people in one heart and mind;
Bid envy, strife, and quarrels cease;
Fill the whole world with heaven’s peace. **

O King of the Gentiles and the Desired of all, you are the cornerstone that binds two into one. Come, and save man whom you fashioned out of clay.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Brian,

I’m sorry for my tardy response.

I am just trying to ascertain your presuppositions in this area. Because you are an evangelical, I am trying to find out if you have accepted Apostolic Succession or what exactly.

I am an Evangelical but I’m inquiring into Catholicism. I haven’t accepted Apostolic Succession but I might come around to accepting it and then change direction in my spiritual journey – rather than remaining in Protestantism with my feet planted firmly in mid–air.

There is not anything of this sort because there is not a Protestant Church. There are lots of authority in several denominations. Like any Christian denomination or group, the question is what IS that authority.

I’m not disputing the existence of authority and visible organization within the various Protestant denominations. I’m asserting that one can be an authority unto oneself within Protestantism simply because, as you’ve pointed out, there is not a “Protestant Church.”

If as an evangelical, you have accepted Apostolic Succession (a radical change unless you are an evangelical Anglican or some such group) as a basis for authority, you have several groups whose claims to this you must examine. Only then, can you come to the conclusion that you have accepted the correct authority.

I respectfully disagree. Within Protestantism I can accept Apostolic Succession or half–accept it or not accept it at all, as it suits me, according to my interpretation of the verses and passages in the Bible upon which I decide to focus and then emphasize. And if I decide to take into account in my deliberations any extra–biblical material like, say, The Trail of Blood, then that’s OK, too. But as a Protestant I am under no obligation to examine the claims of any other individual or group. Me, Jesus, and the Bible is enough. Indeed, if I felt like it, I could start my own “Community Bible Church” and regardless of whatever doctrines I decided to endorse or reject or compile I’d be entitled to use the word “Protestant” to describe my church since through my action of starting my own Bible church I would in effect be protesting the inadequacy of all the other churches currently in existence.

It is rare for any group not to have unity of administration(Christian Science shreds anyone in this area) and as far as unity of doctrine…

I agree. The members of a United Methodist Church here in High Point refer to their small groups as “Unity Groups.” I’ve visited with two of them and both seemed harmonious.

I think we could look to other groups that more unified than Catholicism which has a range from highly liberal to traditionalists.

I don’t feel comfortable going along with this line.

Firstly, Catholicism isn’t a group. Catholicism constitutes the largest part of Christendom.

Secondly, although it’s true that there are Liberal Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics that doesn’t impinge upon Catholic doctrine because Catholic doctrine transcends any qualifying indicators individual Catholics might choose to adopt. It seems to me that once a Catholic qualifies his or her Catholicism by inserting a prefix like Liberal or Traditionalist he or she – to a small extent at least – steps away from the unity of doctrine of the Catholic Church which unifies those who do wholeheartedly believe that the mark of a Catholic is to do as the Catholic Church teaches.

I have spent a fair amount of time studying history. Where you see oneness, others may not.

That’s a valid point and I’m always prepared to acknowledge that another person has greater knowledge than I do. But I’m suggesting that subjectivity is intrinsic to Protestantism and if I’m correct about that then I can interpret the Bible for myself and go entirely my own way with the blessing of all sincere Protestants who claim that same right for themselves regardless of how much or how little any of us might know or even want to know. And although your suggestion that others may not see oneness where I do is quite likely to be on target, it’s also possible that some of those others might agree with me about where the oneness isn’t.

If I accept the presuppositons of Apostolic Succession and so forth, I cannot imagine I would pick Catholicism over some of the Orthodox groups. Since you asked, not trying to pick a fight…

I know you’re not trying to start a fight. You’re being very helpful and you’re encouraging me to think. I had turned aside from my inquiry into Orthodoxy but you might well be right and perhaps I should reconsider. I may go to Vespers this evening. I must admit that I’ve been missing the Divine Liturgy. It is very beautiful.

My answers…are always honest

Yes, of course. Please forgive me for my feeble wording. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were anything other than honest. I should perhaps have used the word direct rather than the word honest so as to convey exactly the kind of answer that I was looking for.

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary.

Gratefully,
Mick

P.S. I think I pulled out one of Schaeffer’s phrases and used it within my first response above so it’s incumbent upon me to acknowledge that Francis Schaeffer was indeed a great Reformed thinker and that his ideas have been helpful to me. But I find it interesting that his son, Frank, eventually became an Orthodox Christian.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi Brian,

I’m sorry for my tardy response.

I am an Evangelical but I’m inquiring into Catholicism. I haven’t accepted Apostolic Succession but I might come around to accepting it and then change direction in my spiritual journey – rather than remaining in Protestantism with my feet planted firmly in mid–air.

I’m not disputing the existence of authority and visible organization within the various Protestant denominations. I’m asserting that one can be an authority unto oneself within Protestantism simply because, as you’ve pointed out, there is not a “Protestant Church.”

I respectfully disagree. Within Protestantism I can accept Apostolic Succession or half–accept it or not accept it at all, as it suits me, according to my interpretation of the verses and passages in the Bible upon which I decide to focus and then emphasize. And if I decide to take into account in my deliberations any extra–biblical material like, say, The Trail of Blood, then that’s OK, too. But as a Protestant I am under no obligation to examine the claims of any other individual or group. Me, Jesus, and the Bible is enough. Indeed, if I felt like it, I could start my own “Community Bible Church” and regardless of whatever doctrines I decided to endorse or reject or compile I’d be entitled to use the word “Protestant” to describe my church since through my action of starting my own Bible church I would in effect be protesting the inadequacy of all the other churches currently in existence.

I agree. The members of a United Methodist Church here in High Point refer to their small groups as “Unity Groups.” I’ve visited with two of them and both seemed harmonious.

I don’t feel comfortable going along with this line.

Firstly, Catholicism isn’t a group. Catholicism constitutes the largest part of Christendom.

Secondly, although it’s true that there are Liberal Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics that doesn’t impinge upon Catholic doctrine because Catholic doctrine transcends any qualifying indicators individual Catholics might choose to adopt. It seems to me that once a Catholic qualifies his or her Catholicism by inserting a prefix like Liberal or Traditionalist he or she – to a small extent at least – steps away from the unity of doctrine of the Catholic Church which unifies those who do wholeheartedly believe that the mark of a Catholic is to do as the Catholic Church teaches.

That’s a valid point and I’m always prepared to acknowledge that another person has greater knowledge than I do. But I’m suggesting that subjectivity is intrinsic to Protestantism and if I’m correct about that then I can interpret the Bible for myself and go entirely my own way with the blessing of all sincere Protestants who claim that same right for themselves regardless of how much or how little any of us might know or even want to know. And although your suggestion that others may not see oneness where I do is quite likely to be on target, it’s also possible that some of those others might agree with me about where the oneness isn’t.

I know you’re not trying to start a fight. You’re being very helpful and you’re encouraging me to think. I had turned aside from my inquiry into Orthodoxy but you might well be right and perhaps I should reconsider. I may go to Vespers this evening. I must admit that I’ve been missing the Divine Liturgy. It is very beautiful.

Yes, of course. Please forgive me for my feeble wording. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you were anything other than honest. I should perhaps have used the word direct rather than the word honest so as to convey exactly the kind of answer that I was looking for.

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary.

Gratefully,
Mick

P.S. I think I pulled out one of Schaeffer’s phrases and used it within my first response above so it’s incumbent upon me to acknowledge that Francis Schaeffer was indeed a great Reformed thinker and that his ideas have been helpful to me. But I find it interesting that his son, Frank, eventually became an Orthodox Christian.

hi SST

i hope you are watching EWTN a Catholic Channel. there is a beautiful Mass going in Sao Paulo Brasil. beautiful Church. Mass for the ordination of priests and deacons.

God bless you.

Psalms 127:1 the prefigurement,
"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."

 

[SSTeacher]

hi SST

i hope you are watching EWTN a Catholic Channel. there is a beautiful Mass going in Sao Paulo Brasil. beautiful Church. Mass for the ordination of priests and deacons.

God bless you.

wisdomseeker,

Well, actually, I’m not. Unfortunately, we don’t get EWTN but I’m sure it is beautiful, as you say.

Happily.
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker,

Well, actually, I’m not. Unfortunately, we don’t get EWTN but I’m sure it is beautiful, as you say.

Happily.
Mick

oh… that is ok. i have been to NC and i believe they are most baptists and evangelic churches, am i wrong?

i saw one Catholic church, St Anne in Fayetville.

Peace onto you.

Psalms 127:1 the prefigurement,
"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."

 

[SSTeacher]

oh… i have been to NC and i believe they are most baptists and evangelic churches, am i wrong?

Peace onto you.

I guess North Carolina follows the national trend with Baptists being the largest Protestant denomination and Methodists following up second. After that, it’s anybody’s guess.

I think it’s extremely unfortunate that high–profile Protestant preachers seen on the television are spreading a message that’s different from the one Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount because the result seems to be that many Protestant Christians are being influenced toward supposing rewards in this life are the automatic result of being a Christian and so they’re surprised when that doesn’t prove to be the case.

Since I came to live in the United States I’ve lived only in the South but my impression is that the American worldview (if I can generalize like that) that’s gradually developing here is following the same pattern as the one that is more fully developed across the Atlantic. England is now largely agnostic, which amounts to it being a land of functional atheism. Islam continues to grow there, of course.

That seems to be the way things are heading in this country. The Protestant churches are apparently emptying rapidly and I would suppose that most of them are getting into debt and having to curtail some of their ministry activities. Well aware that the battle is for the minds of the youth but clueless as to how to fight, Protestant clergy have been coaxed into allowing the music generated by the culture to be introduced into their churches. That means it’s just a matter of time. The churchgoers are copying the world. All young people easily see that this is what’s happening and it’s therefore inevitable that most of them will eventually reject the copycat and head for the real thing (rock music free from archaic religious rules together with the attendant tempting offer of sex and drugs). The only people left will be aging uncomprehending Protestants who have a vague notion that apologetics means saying sorry to “seekers” for all the legalism in church.

I daresay that by the year 2050, the Protestant churches in this country will be as empty as those in England. I think the Catholic Church in this country will fare better than any of the Protestant denominations in that it will still maintain a presence albeit a smaller one. However, I think the Eastern Orthodox church will actually gain ground. I don’t think Islam will do so well Stateside because it’s so radically in antithesis to the American Way.

Here endeth the opinion.

Peace,
Mick