What Church Is Most Biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrewMax said:
Yeah and??? Where does Paul speak about the whole premise of the Catholic mass?
Click to expand...
St. Paul is reminding the people of the words of the Consecration, and that it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ; not merely a symbol. (A symbol would not be able to harm you if you were in a state of sin while receiving it.)
 
jmcrae said:
Yes, I’m sure. There is nothing in the rubrics of the Mass that allows for “speaking in tongues” at any point during the Mass -

The fact that someone wants to invent a “charismatic Mass” does not mean that such a thing has any legal standing in the Catholic Church.

Charismatic meetings outside of Mass are fine - and even encouraged - but there is no place for these activities in the Mass itself.

There are other spiritual gifts that are not used during Mass, either - don’t make the mistake of equating the Church with the Mass - the Mass is the focal point, but the Church is bigger than the Mass, and the majority of the spiritual gifts are used more outside of Mass than in it.
Click to expand...
But there apparently is a place in several churches for this to occur. Are these liturgical abuses?
 
BrianH said:
Has the Catholic Church officially defined them as such? Please provide a link or a quote, thanks.
Click to expand...
There is no comprehensive list of liturgical abuses - such a list would be absolutely unwieldy, to try to think of all the things that people might try to do at Mass.

Instead, if we don’t find it in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and if what we find in the General Instruction would tend to preclude the activity that we are thinking of adding to the Mass (such as the instruction to have the Mass be either in Latin or in the local language of the people), then it is an abuse of the Mass.

For example, there is also nothing stating that people are not allowed to stand on their heads during the homily, but we do read that the people should be sitting down in their pews while the priest proclaims the homily from the Ambo or else from the presider’s chair, and so we see that standing on our heads would not really fit very well with these instructions.
 
jmcrae said:
There is no comprehensive list of liturgical abuses - such a list would be absolutely unwieldy, to try to think of all the things that people might try to do at Mass.

Instead, if we don’t find it in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and if what we find in the General Instruction would tend to preclude the activity that we are thinking of adding to the Mass (such as the instruction to have the Mass be either in Latin or in the local language of the people), then it is an abuse of the Mass.
.
Click to expand...
Ok…so can you provide a link that teaches that if it is not in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal…then it is an abuse of the mass?
Because if this practice occurs, and it does, and no one in a high ranking position, although it certainly seems it should come from the Pope himself, isnt this just a case of a church with no discipline? What is the use of having a leadership if they do not…lead? Your analogy about standing on your head, while moderately amusing, is of course not a problem within the Catholic Church. I do not know enough about liturgical abuses, although I have on occasion read the Traditional Catholic forum and read many examples of this occuring, to know what other abuses have been corrected by the Pope.
You see, I think the Pope knows this occurs and from I have read, it does not seem like he has cracked down on it? Is the Catholic Church a paper tiger? A lot of bluster on these forums but no real teeth in real life?
 
BrianH said:
Ok…so can you provide a link that teaches that if it is not in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal…then it is an abuse of the mass?
Because if this practice occurs, and it does, and no one in a high ranking position, although it certainly seems it should come from the Pope himself, isnt this just a case of a church with no discipline? What is the use of having a leadership if they do not…lead? Your analogy about standing on your head, while moderately amusing, is of course not a problem within the Catholic Church. I do not know enough about liturgical abuses, although I have on occasion read the Traditional Catholic forum and read many examples of this occuring, to know what other abuses have been corrected by the Pope.
You see, I think the Pope knows this occurs and from I have read, it does not seem like he has cracked down on it? Is the Catholic Church a paper tiger? A lot of bluster on these forums but no real teeth in real life?
Click to expand...
The Mass is the Mass. Think of it in analogy to a kind of music, or a kind of art. There comes a point where music isn’t “Baroque” anymore, or isn’t “Rock and Roll” any more, because too many of the rules of that style have been violated. Or with art, there comes a point where it isn’t Naturalism any more, or Realism, or Expressionism - each style has certain rules, and you can recognize when it’s following that style, when it’s not following that style very well but is still recognizable as such, when it has become something else - a different style - and when it’s just a bad painting, with no style at all.

The Mass has certain things that make it the Mass. But when you start adding a lot of innovation, then at a certain point, it becomes a “bad Mass” in the same sense as when we talk about bad art or bad music - and then there comes a point where it isn’t Mass at all any more; it’s something completely different, because too many of the essential rules have been broken.

As far as what has been “cracked down on,” here is a link to Redemptionis Sacramentum, which tells us what is definitely proper, and some common errors to avoid. In looking at what is wanted, we can also get a sense of what is not wanted, even if it isn’t explicitly articulated.
 
jmcrae said:
St. Paul is reminding the people of the words of the Consecration, and that it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ; not merely a symbol. (A symbol would not be able to harm you if you were in a state of sin while receiving it.)
Click to expand...
who said it was a symbol? That is your stereotyping of all Protestants obviously.
 
BrewMax said:
who said it was a symbol? That is your stereotyping of all Protestants obviously.
Click to expand...
Protestants do not believe in Transubstantiation. They never have - it’s one of the things they rejected as being “superstition” when they first got going with Lutheranism and Calvinism in the mid-1500s.
 
jmcrae said:
Protestants do not believe in Transubstantiation. They never have - it’s one of the things they rejected as being “superstition” when they first got going with Lutheranism and Calvinism in the mid-1500s.
Click to expand...
Ah, this is really the meat of this isn’t it?? Transubstantiation.
 
It’s used to attempt to make the Real Presence exclusive to the Catholic church but the problem is that it isn’t a truthful concept or action. Jesus said this is my body, not this is my body only when a Catholic clegy-person confects it. I went through decades of that and it doesn’t wash. God’s word is what matters in all matters. I need Jesus Christ himself, not some attempt at explaining a meta-physical change in bread and wine which doesn’t need to happen anyway.
 
BrewMax said:
It’s used to attempt to make the Real Presence exclusive to the Catholic church but the problem is that it isn’t a truthful concept or action. Jesus said this is my body, not this is my body only when a Catholic clegy-person confects it. I went through decades of that and it doesn’t wash. God’s word is what matters in all matters. I need Jesus Christ himself, not some attempt at explaining a meta-physical change in bread and wine which doesn’t need to happen anyway.
Click to expand...
Jesus said at the Last Supper, this is My Body. In the John 6 in the Bread Discourse, he said, “My flesh is real food indeed, and my drink is real drink indeed.” In Catholicism, we believe the Eucharist becomes Jesus Christ once the Blessed Host becomes consecrated. The mainstream Protestants had lower this to mean symbollically. While others redefine it as consubstantiation.

The Catholic belief is more Biblical the consubstantiation because she professes the Bread and Wine is no longer bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of the Lord, just as Scripture says.
 
BrewMax said:
Ah, this is really the meat of this isn’t it?? Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Some Lutherans, what would you call them, “Synods” believe in the Real Presence. My dad did, LCMS. German Evangelical Lutherans do too. But they don’t call it “Transubstantiation.” I don’t know the difference between that and “Consubstantiation.” In the end, it’s not a matter of what I believe, it’s about who God appointed to be the Authority.
 
BrewMax said:
who said it was a symbol? That is your stereotyping of all Protestants obviously.
Click to expand...
Explain me your background and what your belief of the Eucharist is. Is it the Real Presence? Who has the authority? Can anyone do it?

Sandusky, on another thread, identified himself as “Reformed,” he said Catholics recrucify Jesus at every mass. He also said that only the Elect are saved (Predestination). It didn’t make a lot of sense, in that he said God created people IN ADVANCE to be saved or to go to Hell. He said he believed in Free Will, yet the theology of Predestination seems anti-free will.

Is your theology different? It seems so confusing to me. Calvinist vs. hmm.

I know Lutherans don’t believe in Predestination.

This is why many Catholics are confused.
 
Christine,

It is very clear to me the introduction of Protestantism in the 16th Century is completely an erroneous doctrine. It teaches new doctrine no different than Mormonism.

New concept of Protestantism:
  1. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
  2. Sola Fide: The doctrine of sola fide or “faith alone” asserts that it solely is on the basis of God’s grace through the believer’s faith alone that believers are forgiven their transgressions of the Law of God.
None of these two doctrines were ever taught in the Bible itself nor did our Early Church Fathers taught it. These beliefs are completely man-made created by the Fathers of the Reformers.

In the course of time, we see Protestantism itself splinter into hundreds, and then into thousands.

From its Sola Scriptura Doctrine, it produce new faiths like Mormonism and the concept of Rapture Theory. Though Mormonism themselves would not be consider Protestants or Christian. Joseph Smith, however was Protestant.

None of these are doctrines are taught by the Apostles, or Jesus. Like Paul said. “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, therefore, my brethrens, don’t carry any strange doctrine.”

The fractured sects of Protestants is 33,000 and growing. They just splinter into more sects base on personal private interpretation. Protestants in a way have made themselves the Magisterium and Popes. It’s also very individualistic religion.

It’s always, its me, Jesus, and Bible. I once heard a Protestant say. “I don’t need the Church. I don’t have to go to Sunday service. I have Jesus in me and I read the Bible. Why bother?” So by his self-interpretation, he can excuse himself by not going to Sunday service. Oh the errors of Protestantism.
 
People were splitting a LONG time before any group that can accurately be described as Protestant came around. But its much easier to make Protestants the boogeyman in this debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top