This blog is called Dead Theologians because I prefer to read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield and the like rather than 99% of today's wasted ink on paper.
The content on this page is my honest attempt to go over things that pertain to Christianity and its mouthpiece, the church.
I also plan to write about many other topics that relate to my life as a Christian. My goal is to comment throughout the week on one subject while changing subjects every week or so.
I dont pray to Mary or the saints. Catholics are not allowed to pray *to* the saints as though we were praying to God Himself! -
-But I do know that I join in their own prayers for you. And in as much as I am sure that the saints *are interceding for you, in the mediation and merits of Christ alone, I will ask them to pray for you all the more :)
... Another thought, if I may: are you all actually familiar with the Pope's teachings on Scripture? For instance, a helpful quote comes from Ratzinger's days as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
You said ""The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
Don't we wish that the "mother church" had always felt this way?
The fact is that when you look carefully at the historical record, the Church *has indeed always felt this way!
- The problem was that up until the invention of the printing press and the industrial revolution, so few people could *read* or own something as expensive as a bound Bible. Prior to these developments, all but the educated landed gentry were indeed 'dependent' on the Church to provide them with the Scripture that they so desperately needed- and thus it has always been that the public reading of Scripture is an essential and preliminary part of every Mass.
For those who attend daily Mass, we are sure to get our daily dose of Scripture from the pulpit- OT, Psalms, Epistle, and Gospel- and, because we can do so in our literate age, we are highly encouraged to read and meditate on the daily readings (and the entire Bible!) on our own. But this encouragement for all people to be formed by Scripture has *always been the Church's attitude.
"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."
The problem with all papist dogma summed up nicely by a pope. What wonderful irony. If Roman catholics actually read the book, and the Holy Spirit is allowed to reveal its' meaning, then the rcc faithful would leave Rome in droves. The arrogance of Rome is that they believe the Scriptures reveal exactly what the magesterium says they reveal, and that anyone reading the Bible will come to the conclusion that Rome is right. That is hardly the case.
Please the "lack of reading material" argument does not wash. The congregations were never allowed,or later encouraged to read the Scriptures. The majority of the priests had never read the bible themselves, of course until the heretic Luther utilized the printing press to "spread the Word" in the language of the common folk. I have heard many catholics, especially the traditionalist camp, brag about the fact that Luther used a device invented by a good catholic (Guttenberg) to propogate the reformation. I would call it evidence of the Lord's sense of humor and irony.
BTW, roman catholics pray TO Mary and the saints.
Some examples: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/prayers/mpray01.html#mem
Hebrews 7: 24but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
... but the Pope is not being ironical in his statement; he actually means what he says! And, accordingly, the Church means what it says when it encourages the faithful to read the Scriptures. Maybe take a look at the papal Encylicals that encourage familiarity with the Scripture.
May I ask why you argue that 'the lack of reading material argument does not wash' ? I was not offering an argument, but an historical fact as explanation. Printed Bibles were simply not available in the Middle Ages- though while I was studying the monastic missionary movements in medieval Ireland this year, I saw the small, leather bound Gospels that monks would carry in their satchels in order to make converts by sharing the Scriptures.
And again, with all due respect, when you say that "the congregations were never allowed, or later encouraged to read the Scriptures," how could you know that- especially when the evidence is to the contrary? The proliferation of stained glass windows and iconography in medieval churches testifies to the Church's urgency to communicate the content of Scripture to the largely illiterate faithful. And if the Church wanted to keep Scripture out of the minds of the faithful, why does Scripture reading feature so prominently at every Mass?
I do not want to re-open a discussion about praying with the communion of saints. Yes, Catholics believe that because those who died in Christ are very much alive at His right hand, we remain united with them in a real way- our brothers and sisters in the faith- and that because God mediates our continuing relationship with these real people, and because they share in Christ's passionate love for the lost world, we can talk *to* them. I was careful to qualify that we do not talk *to* the saints as we would talk to *God.* God alone is worshipped and adored; the saints are honored and their prayers are requested. Do you not ask your friends and family to pray for you?
As I understand it, Tyndale was executed by the civil authority for heresy- because His translation of the Bible was heretical and because it contained heretical ideas and abundant errors. The act of translation- or of providing access to the Scripture- has never been heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church produced its translation of the Bible into English within a few decades of Tyndale's demise. (The Douay-Reims version was released in 1582 and in 1609).
The point to recall is that there is no translation without inerpretation. In setting out to produce his own private translation of Scripture, Tyndale was exalting his private judgment above his rightful authorities. With all due respect for Tyndale's zeal, we see *terrible* translations/paraphrases of Scripture being produced today in the spirit of Tyndale. However well intentioned the producers are, private judgement does not do justice to the Gospel; rather, it reflects depraved modern trends. I was reminded of this every time I was required to work with the NRSV version of the New Testament at Yale, in which all references to God as Father, King, or Lord are eliminated in preference for modern femminist interpretations of God's Word. It is in instances like these that we see that the Scripture needs to be protected by the Church.
In Tyndale's time, many English versions of the Scriptures already existed, and these were authorized and perfectly legal. Reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged; in fact, there was a surplus of available printed English Bibles in Tyndale's day. The law prevented any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church. The Reformation had cast chaos and doctrinal confusion over Europe that had not reached England, and the civil authorities were in a vigilant mood. It should also be remembered that prior to the time that Tyndale departed for Worms to revise Scripture, he was already highly suspected for bad behavior unbecoming of a pastor. His own bishop, to whom Tyndale had vowed allegiance before God, would not support him in his cause. He was known as only a mediocre scholar (there are apparently around 2,000 textual errors in his translation of the NT alone) and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, and had expressed contempt for Church authority. He had already been tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. Also recall that the secular English reformers refused to have anything to do with Tyndale's legacy after their own break from Rome.
"Do you not ask your friends and family to pray for you?"
Yes, but they are living. The dearly departed do not pray for me. I go directly to the Father through the Son.
John 14: 13Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Romans 7: 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since HE always lives to make intercession for them.
The vast majority of Bibles that were available were printed in Latin. The people had to rely on magesterial interpretations. These interpretations are wrong, period! I am sure the pope means what he says. However he views Rome's doctrines as the true interpretation of Scripture, so when he speaks of reading the book, he means in light of papal dogma. He is wrong. The rcc has always ignored a vast majority of Scripture. It does not view the Scripture as one complete word from Genesis to Revelation. Any scripture it does use is ripped completely out of it's context, and misunderstood. The rcc is thoroughly eisegetical in its' approach. IOW the doctrines are created first, and then a select few verses are applied as "proof" I am sorry but in all my years in romanism I have never heard a true biblical sermon ever. I have heard much magesterial doctrine and dogma though.
If a catholic congregant brought up a contradictory point to Rome's "infallible" view, he would be corrected, or reprimanded, or excommunicated depending on how far the issue is pushed by the congregant.
Here is a more accurate history of Tyndale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
BTW "He was infamous for insulting the clergy, and had expressed contempt for Church authority."
What is wrong with that?? The authority of Rome does not represent God. Rome always assumed authority that cannot be found in the scripture as ever been given to the church. IOW the RCC is not the one true church, and it is not even part of the one true church.
The dearly departed who died in Christ are very much *alive- and in the presence of God Himself!
And of course our only access to God is through the Son; but the Son's mediation has included us (our ministry, our witnessing, and our prayers!) in His work too. This is His gracious gift.
Approved, I know that you are speaking from your own experience when you refer to your perception of the Church's abuses, and I take your account seriously. However, my experiences of the Church's treatment of Scripture have been completely different. Nor do your experiences reflect Rome's actual self-desription. So while I hear you and sympathize with you, your experience cannot be determinative in these discussions. Rome is clear about its official positions, and these positions are readily available for all who are curious; and these positions should not be misconstrued on account of personal grievances. Rome honors and defends the Canon of Scripture as the Word of God.
Finally: you ask- "He (Tyndale) was infamous for insulting the clergy, and had expressed contempt for Church authority. What is wrong with that??"
I would humbly suggest that what's wrong with this kind of behavior is that it is contrary to the love and obedience commanded in Scripture for those who are in authority. As such, such behavior dishonors God.
mm Paul said "absent from the body, present with the Lord"
Therefore only the spirit of all the saints before us are with the Lord.
They are not interceding for me and I have no need to ask them to. Spiritual necromancy!!!
Regardless of my "experiences" Rome is wrong. If I had never been a catholic I would say the same. Get a clue please. Rome cannot claim that Peter was the first pope, that we eat the actual flesh of Jesus, that Mariolatry, May crownings, novenas, and the mass, and prayers to the saints are Scriptural teachings. These activities and/or doctrines are not found in the Scriptures anywhere.
So the pope's words apply only if you believe as he believes. Rome is not the church. Begin on that foundational truth and you are then able to read and exegete scripture properly.
You said; "I would humbly suggest that what's wrong with this kind of behavior is that it is contrary to the love and obedience commanded in Scripture for those who are in authority."
Popes, priests, and bishops are not the authority. We are not to Lord over anyone. I do not bow to the rcc hierarchy at all. They are false teachers. They are not governmental authority as described in Romans 13, although the goal of the papacy was to rule the earth. You conveniently ignore all pertinent issues. You cannot prove your position outside of "ex cathedra" blather.
Dt's question is valid. Rome holds all magesterial dogma as equal to scripture at best and as superior to the scripture at worst; even where it clearly and blatantly contradicts and/or ignores the Word. I dishonor God by not speaking against the harlot.
Please do not use my alleged experiences as a strawman against my arguments. Sola scriptura, or forget it.
Approved, you have the same mindset as an atheist, only with a different foundational point. You believe the proper way to read the Bible is with the foundational principle of "Rome is wrong". If this is false, is there any way to change your mind? What evidence would you accept? I doubt scripture could convince you, as you would deny it shows Rome is right, because this would violate your first principle of reading the scriptures accurately.
Is it possible to have a constructive debate with someone who's first principles demand he never grant that your position has any merit?
And some interesting quotes from various saints of the Eastern Church on papal supremacy, showing that it was a teaching of long standing and not just a medieval invention.
22 comments:
You gotta love these guys!
Nice pic here also.
You know the rcc is more than a little nuts. :-0
I just loved the little gem link. Even the fine print was hysterical! Very original DT.
My prayer for all of you, including the authors of this post and blog: may God bless you, keep you and make His face shine upon you!
When you pray for us, will you be praying to Mary or one of the saints?
JSU,
I dont pray to Mary or the saints. Catholics are not allowed to pray *to* the saints as though we were praying to God Himself! -
-But I do know that I join in their own prayers for you. And in as much as I am sure that the saints *are interceding for you, in the mediation and merits of Christ alone, I will ask them to pray for you all the more :)
... Another thought, if I may: are you all actually familiar with the Pope's teachings on Scripture? For instance, a helpful quote comes from Ratzinger's days as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
MM,
You said ""The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
Don't we wish that the "mother church" had always felt this way?
DT
DT,
The fact is that when you look carefully at the historical record, the Church *has indeed always felt this way!
- The problem was that up until the invention of the printing press and the industrial revolution, so few people could *read* or own something as expensive as a bound Bible. Prior to these developments, all but the educated landed gentry were indeed 'dependent' on the Church to provide them with the Scripture that they so desperately needed- and thus it has always been that the public reading of Scripture is an essential and preliminary part of every Mass.
For those who attend daily Mass, we are sure to get our daily dose of Scripture from the pulpit- OT, Psalms, Epistle, and Gospel- and, because we can do so in our literate age, we are highly encouraged to read and meditate on the daily readings (and the entire Bible!) on our own. But this encouragement for all people to be formed by Scripture has *always been the Church's attitude.
"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."
The problem with all papist dogma summed up nicely by a pope. What wonderful irony.
If Roman catholics actually read the book, and the Holy Spirit is allowed to reveal its' meaning, then the rcc faithful would leave Rome in droves.
The arrogance of Rome is that they believe the Scriptures reveal exactly what the magesterium says they reveal, and that anyone reading the Bible will come to the conclusion that Rome is right.
That is hardly the case.
Please the "lack of reading material" argument does not wash.
The congregations were never allowed,or later encouraged to read the Scriptures. The majority of the priests had never read the bible themselves, of course until the heretic Luther utilized the printing press to "spread the Word"
in the language of the common folk.
I have heard many catholics, especially the traditionalist camp, brag about the fact that Luther used a device invented by a good catholic (Guttenberg) to propogate the reformation. I would call it evidence of the Lord's sense of humor and irony.
BTW, roman catholics pray TO Mary and the saints.
Some examples:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/prayers/mpray01.html#mem
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english3/p02412.htm
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english3/p02241.htm
Hebrews 7:
24but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Dear Approved,
... but the Pope is not being ironical in his statement; he actually means what he says! And, accordingly, the Church means what it says when it encourages the faithful to read the Scriptures. Maybe take a look at the papal Encylicals that encourage familiarity with the Scripture.
May I ask why you argue that 'the lack of reading material argument does not wash' ? I was not offering an argument, but an historical fact as explanation. Printed Bibles were simply not available in the Middle Ages- though while I was studying the monastic missionary movements in medieval Ireland this year, I saw the small, leather bound Gospels that monks would carry in their satchels in order to make converts by sharing the Scriptures.
And again, with all due respect, when you say that "the congregations were never allowed, or later encouraged to read the Scriptures," how could you know that- especially when the evidence is to the contrary? The proliferation of stained glass windows and iconography in medieval churches testifies to the Church's urgency to communicate the content of Scripture to the largely illiterate faithful. And if the Church wanted to keep Scripture out of the minds of the faithful, why does Scripture reading feature so prominently at every Mass?
I do not want to re-open a discussion about praying with the communion of saints. Yes, Catholics believe that because those who died in Christ are very much alive at His right hand, we remain united with them in a real way- our brothers and sisters in the faith- and that because God mediates our continuing relationship with these real people, and because they share in Christ's passionate love for the lost world, we can talk *to* them. I was careful to qualify that we do not talk *to* the saints as we would talk to *God.* God alone is worshipped and adored; the saints are honored and their prayers are requested. Do you not ask your friends and family to pray for you?
MM,
Could you tell me why Wm. Tyndale was burned at the stake?
DT
DT,
As I understand it, Tyndale was executed by the civil authority for heresy- because His translation of the Bible was heretical and because it contained heretical ideas and abundant errors. The act of translation- or of providing access to the Scripture- has never been heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church produced its translation of the Bible into English within a few decades of Tyndale's demise. (The Douay-Reims version was released in 1582 and in 1609).
The point to recall is that there is no translation without inerpretation. In setting out to produce his own private translation of Scripture, Tyndale was exalting his private judgment above his rightful authorities. With all due respect for Tyndale's zeal, we see *terrible* translations/paraphrases of Scripture being produced today in the spirit of Tyndale. However well intentioned the producers are, private judgement does not do justice to the Gospel; rather, it reflects depraved modern trends. I was reminded of this every time I was required to work with the NRSV version of the New Testament at Yale, in which all references to God as Father, King, or Lord are eliminated in preference for modern femminist interpretations of God's Word. It is in instances like these that we see that the Scripture needs to be protected by the Church.
In Tyndale's time, many English versions of the Scriptures already existed, and these were authorized and perfectly legal. Reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged; in fact, there was a surplus of available printed English Bibles in Tyndale's day. The law prevented any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church. The Reformation had cast chaos and doctrinal confusion over Europe that had not reached England, and the civil authorities were in a vigilant mood. It should also be remembered that prior to the time that Tyndale departed for Worms to revise Scripture, he was already highly suspected for bad behavior unbecoming of a pastor. His own bishop, to whom Tyndale had vowed allegiance before God, would not support him in his cause. He was known as only a mediocre scholar (there are apparently around 2,000 textual errors in his translation of the NT alone) and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, and had expressed contempt for Church authority. He had already been tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. Also recall that the secular English reformers refused to have anything to do with Tyndale's legacy after their own break from Rome.
"Do you not ask your friends and family to pray for you?"
Yes, but they are living.
The dearly departed do not pray for me. I go directly to the Father through the Son.
John 14:
13Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Romans 7:
25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since HE always lives to make intercession for them.
The vast majority of Bibles that were available were printed in Latin. The people had to rely on magesterial interpretations. These interpretations are wrong, period!
I am sure the pope means what he says. However he views Rome's doctrines as the true interpretation of Scripture, so when he speaks of reading the book, he means in light of papal dogma. He is wrong. The rcc has always ignored a vast majority of Scripture. It does not view the Scripture as one complete word from Genesis to Revelation. Any scripture it does use is ripped completely out of it's context, and misunderstood. The rcc is thoroughly eisegetical in its' approach. IOW the doctrines are created first, and then a select few verses are applied as "proof"
I am sorry but in all my years in romanism I have never heard a true biblical sermon ever. I have heard much magesterial doctrine and dogma though.
If a catholic congregant brought up a contradictory point to Rome's "infallible" view, he would be corrected, or reprimanded, or excommunicated depending on how far the issue is pushed by the congregant.
Here is a more accurate history of Tyndale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
BTW
"He was infamous for insulting the clergy, and had expressed contempt for Church authority."
What is wrong with that?? The authority of Rome does not represent God. Rome always assumed authority that cannot be found in the scripture as ever been given to the church. IOW the RCC is not the one true church, and it is not even part of the one true church.
I pray for all who suffer under these delusions.
Approved,
The dearly departed who died in Christ are very much *alive- and in the presence of God Himself!
And of course our only access to God is through the Son; but the Son's mediation has included us (our ministry, our witnessing, and our prayers!) in His work too. This is His gracious gift.
Approved, I know that you are speaking from your own experience when you refer to your perception of the Church's abuses, and I take your account seriously. However, my experiences of the Church's treatment of Scripture have been completely different. Nor do your experiences reflect Rome's actual self-desription. So while I hear you and sympathize with you, your experience cannot be determinative in these discussions. Rome is clear about its official positions, and these positions are readily available for all who are curious; and these positions should not be misconstrued on account of personal grievances.
Rome honors and defends the Canon of Scripture as the Word of God.
Finally: you ask- "He (Tyndale) was infamous for insulting the clergy, and had expressed contempt for Church authority. What is wrong with that??"
I would humbly suggest that what's wrong with this kind of behavior is that it is contrary to the love and obedience commanded in Scripture for those who are in authority. As such, such behavior dishonors God.
All the best to you! Have a great weekend!
MM,
You said "Rome honors and defends the Canon of Scripture as the Word of God."
Would you not agree that they also consider Tradition and the Councils on the same level as Holy Writ?
DT
mm
Paul said
"absent from the body, present with the Lord"
Therefore only the spirit of all the saints before us are with the Lord.
They are not interceding for me and I have no need to ask them to.
Spiritual necromancy!!!
Regardless of my "experiences" Rome is wrong. If I had never been a catholic I would say the same.
Get a clue please.
Rome cannot claim that Peter was the first pope, that we eat the actual flesh of Jesus, that Mariolatry, May crownings, novenas, and the mass, and prayers to the saints are Scriptural teachings. These activities and/or doctrines are not found in the Scriptures anywhere.
So the pope's words apply only if you believe as he believes. Rome is not the church. Begin on that foundational truth and you are then able to read and exegete scripture properly.
You said;
"I would humbly suggest that what's wrong with this kind of behavior is that it is contrary to the love and obedience commanded in Scripture for those who are in authority."
Popes, priests, and bishops are not the authority. We are not to Lord over anyone. I do not bow to the rcc hierarchy at all. They are false teachers. They are not governmental authority as described in Romans 13, although the goal of the papacy was to rule the earth.
You conveniently ignore all pertinent issues. You cannot prove your position outside of "ex cathedra" blather.
Dt's question is valid. Rome holds all magesterial dogma as equal to scripture at best and as superior to the scripture at worst; even where it clearly and blatantly contradicts and/or ignores the Word.
I dishonor God by not speaking against the harlot.
Please do not use my alleged experiences as a strawman against my arguments.
Sola scriptura, or forget it.
Hello,
Approved, you have the same mindset as an atheist, only with a different foundational point. You believe the proper way to read the Bible is with the foundational principle of "Rome is wrong". If this is false, is there any way to change your mind? What evidence would you accept? I doubt scripture could convince you, as you would deny it shows Rome is right, because this would violate your first principle of reading the scriptures accurately.
Is it possible to have a constructive debate with someone who's first principles demand he never grant that your position has any merit?
Caspar,
Just a quick comment.
“Can Two Walk Together,. Except They Be Agreed?” (Amos 3:3)
Also, is it possible for two to have a debate or discussion when both sides are polar opposites?
Both have to have the same foundation or they are never going to come together.
DT
Hi, DT,
I apologize if this comes through twice. Go ahead and delete one of them if it did. I pushed the wrong button...
I think its possible to even have common ground with atheists, if they accept the laws of logic and are open to the evidence.
Bringing the authority debate up to a more convenient post, I've found an excellent article on the topic.
http://www.mark-shea.com/pickle.html
Enjoy!
And some interesting quotes from various saints of the Eastern Church on papal supremacy, showing that it was a teaching of long standing and not just a medieval invention.
http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/2004/11/and-you-can-quote-me-eastern-papal.html
God bless!
Post a Comment