Latin Mass?

[Dale]

On sacred language …


Did God use a sacred language when he spoke from the burning bush?


Did God use a sacred language when spoke from the sky, saying “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”?'



If God used a sacred language on either occasion, it isn't recorded. The Bible doesn't mention it. It looks like God used an ordinary language, one that would be understood.



If God sees no reason to use a sacred language, I don't see why we should either.



*
*

 

[Dale]

Since the subject of cremation has come up on this thread, here is a point in favor of cremation.



“Undoubtedly in populous communities and in crowded districts the burial of dead bodies may be dangerous to the living, particularly in the case of deaths from contagious disease.”



Also,
“The subject of employing cremation for the bodies of those who die of contagious disease is important. Such diseases include small-pox, scarlet fever, diptheria, tuberculosis, enteric, relapsing and puerperal fevers, the annual number of deaths from which in the United Kingdom in 1926 was upwards of 94,000. In cremation complete disinfection takes place by means of the high temperature to which the body is exposed.”



Source:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946, under Cremation



*



*

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Where I live, the closest Missouri Synod Lutheran Church is heavily into Creationism. They have also been known to pass out rightist pamphlets with no obvious connection to Christianity or Lutheranism.

Being Sola Scriptura, the Bible gives Confessional Lutherans no choice; God created heaven and earth and every living thing in 6 days.

The handing out of political pamphlets is wrong, and their District President (Bishop) should be dealing with this if he were aware.

Since the RCC has totally rejected Creationism, this is one reason I see far more differences than similarities between Catholic and Lutheran churches.

I won't lie, there are many more similarities than there are differences, but the few differences that there are, are considered by both sides to be serious enough that neither of our Churches are at a point where we are ready to declare altar and pulpit fellowship with each other. Creationism is not one of them.

Where do you get your info from BTW, Jack Chick? When you start telling each of us what we believe and practice, you should maybe consider getting yourself a copy of both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord.

What exactly do you mean? It depends upon what you are referring to as creationism. The Catholic Church teaches without a doubt that God created the universe out of nothing. This is dogma, and not debatable within the Catholic Church.

Some of the American Lutheran bodies are really into evangelical style YEC creationism these days.

Yes, officially the LCMS/LCC Churches do hold to YEC, but this is not new; at the time of the Reformation, so did everyone else.

The big question is... what the heck does this have to do with the Latin Mass?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

On sacred language …

Did God use a sacred language when he spoke from the burning bush?

Did God use a sacred language when spoke from the sky, saying “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”?'

If God used a sacred language on either occasion, it isn't recorded. The Bible doesn't mention it. It looks like God used an ordinary language, one that would be understood.

If God sees no reason to use a sacred language, I don't see why we should either.

One could make the argument that since the People Israel are God's Chosen People, and He spoke to them in their language, then the answer might be yes, He did speak to them in a "sacred language".

Since the subject of cremation has come up on this thread, here is a point in favor of cremation.

“Undoubtedly in populous communities and in crowded districts the burial of dead bodies may be dangerous to the living, particularly in the case of deaths from contagious disease.”

Also,
“The subject of employing cremation for the bodies of those who die of contagious disease is important. Such diseases include small-pox, scarlet fever, diptheria, tuberculosis, enteric, relapsing and puerperal fevers, the annual number of deaths from which in the United Kingdom in 1926 was upwards of 94,000. In cremation complete disinfection takes place by means of the high temperature to which the body is exposed.”

Source:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946, under Cremation

If one looks at it from a purely scientific POV, yes. Be mindful that the Pagan Romans cremated their dead. Early Christians believed that there had to be a body to raise up. If you cremated uncle Louie, he was beat. Later Christians continued the practice burial/entombment as a statement of faith. During construction in Fort Erie, Ontario a number of years ago, human remains were found. The Coroners office and a team of archeologists stated emphatically that these burials were Christian and therefore post European. How did they know: hands/arms were crossed over their chest, and they were buried feet to the east. By these burials, these dead men speak to us and say "we are Christians". It was discovered that these men were American Soldiers who died during the war of 1812 during what is now known as the Battle of Snake Hill. Our Canadian Government repatriated these remains to the US so that they could be buried "at home".

I ask again...

<snip>
The big question is... what the heck does this have to do with the Latin Mass?

 

[judechild]

If God used a sacred language on either occasion, it isn't recorded. The Bible doesn't mention it. It looks like God used an ordinary language, one that would be understood.


If God sees no reason to use a sacred language, I don't see why we should either.

There are three major problems with what you have here. The first is that you've implicitly denied Christ's divinity. Remember when I pointed out hat Hebrew was a liturgical (sacred) language by the time of Christ, and that Christ participated in Hebrew liturgies? That means that Jesus "saw a reason to use a sacred language." Well, if God sees no reason to use a sacred language, but Jesus does, then it must be that Jesus is not God. Of course, this isn't true, so I'll excuse your ignorance so long as you retract it.

The second problem is that you've missed Matthew 27, where Jesus on the Cross says "eloi eloi lama sabachthani," which is a Hebrew/Aramaic hybrid. If all you're looking for is a direct instance of Jesus using a sacred language, then there's an example. That means you are also mistaken when you say "The Bible doesn't mention it."

The third problem is that you presumed to speak for God when you said "God sees no reason for a sacred language." What you mean, I think, is "Evangelical protestants don't use sacred language, so God must not either." Unfortunately, you also apparently can't even find which Hebrew liturgies Jesus attended, or see that the Book of Psalms is a prayer book. Sorry, but you are no spokesperson for God.

 

[judechild]

Hope you had a good Easter!

I did. It was a lovely time to be in Rome.

Unfortunately, I was working on my reply when my screen froze, and I'm too tired to start over tonight. Sorry!

 

[Dale]

That interpretation of Revelations has been around over 1000 years longer than the idea of Sola Scriptura.

The arch-bishops coat of arms doesn't just represent him, it also represents the whole arch-diocese; the altar cloth is often decorated with designs that are specific to that Church . Thus the emblem.




I have quite a number of time, used to be Protestant. 20-30 years ago, I like the atmosphere of a baptist church, little dry on the music though; but today I just don't like it. It's like trying to merge a rock concert with a self help seminar.

I don't go to self help seminars; and if was going to listen to rock I would prefer listening to the professionals.

Maybe should try more traditional Baptist service. Many Protestant churches have both Traditional and Contemporary services.

I've never been in a Baptist church that sounded like a self-help seminar.

*

*

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Maybe should try more traditional Baptist service. Many Protestant churches have both Traditional and Contemporary services.

I've never been in a Baptist church that sounded like a self-help seminar.

*

*

You haven't been to my parents' church.

 

[Dale]

You haven't been to my parents' church.

I've heard Baptist churches criticized for talking about tithing too much.
I've hard Baptist churches criticized for talking about hell too much.

I've never heard anyone say that Baptist Churches sound like a self-help seminar. Please explain.


*

*

 

[Tangible]

I was a Baptist for 30+ years. I remember sitting through countless sermons that were all about good advice on how to be nice. Parenting tips, marriage tips, relationship tips, witnessing tips, even tipping tips once, I remember.

Sermons are not for giving tips or advice. Sermons are for preaching the Law in all its sternness to convict us of sin and kill our old man, and for proclaiming the Gospel in all its sweetness, that God has sent his Son Jesus Christ to save sinners, not by anything they could ever think, say or do, but solely because of what Jesus Christ has done for us.

The culture of many Baptist churches is to preach law and gospel to the unsaved, but once saved, to yolk them once again with the law, even though it may be a kinder, gentler kind of law. "Be nice to each other" is just as much law, and just as ultimately unattainable as is "Be perfect as your God is perfect."

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I was a Baptist for 30+ years. I remember sitting through countless sermons that were all about good advice on how to be nice. Parenting tips, marriage tips, relationship tips, witnessing tips, even tipping tips once, I remember.

Sermons are not for giving tips or advice. Sermons are for preaching the Law in all its sternness to convict us of sin and kill our old man, and for proclaiming the Gospel in all its sweetness, that God has sent his Son Jesus Christ to save sinners, not by anything they could ever think, say or do, but solely because of what Jesus Christ has done for us.

The culture of many Baptist churches is to preach law and gospel to the unsaved, but once saved, to yolk them once again with the law, even though it may be a kinder, gentler kind of law. "Be nice to each other" is just as much law, and just as ultimately unattainable as is "Be perfect as your God is perfect."

This^

 

[Dale]

Judechild in post #7:
<< I'd also like to point out that the evangelical definition of Sola Scriptura is self-defeating and simplistic. It's simplistic because it treats the Bible as a set of propositions, when much of the Bible is not propositional-instructive (e.g. the book of Psalms is not for formulating doctrine; it's for praying). It has the effect, then, of simplifying the Bible far too much. It's self-defeating because, even if it was primarily a set of propositions, the proposition ''The Bible [which is a concept that isn't in the Bible] contains all propositions of faith'' is a proposition of faith which isn't in the Bible. It's also impossible to really be a fundamentalist Sola-Scripturist because of the manuscripts of the Bible, but I'll save that for another time. >>



Others on this thread have strongly rejected Sola Scriptura.
(Personally, I don't use Latin terms like Sola Scriptura and I've never gone to a church that did.)



From the online Catholic Catechism:



105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. &#8220;The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.&#8221;69
&#8220;For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.&#8221;70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. &#8220;To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.&#8221;71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. &#8220;Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.&#8221;72 (702)
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a &#8220;religion of the book.&#8221; Christianity is the religion of the &#8220;Word&#8221; of God, a word which is &#8220;not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.&#8221;73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, &#8220;open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.&#8221;74



Link:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm



Question: Since &#8220;Sola Scriptura&#8221; is supposed to be such a bad idea, how does these statements in the Catholic Catechism upholding God as the Author of &#8220;sacred scripture&#8221; differ from it?






*



*

 

[Dale]

Erose in post #66:
<< Originally Posted by Dale

I went to a Catholic funeral Friday, with full mass. Every time I go into a Catholic Church I see something to remind me of how little Catholics know about the Bible and how much they distort it.

In this church there was a stained glass window of Mary crowned with twelve stars. Is this supposed to come from the woman in Revelation 12? If so, it's the least likely interpretation I have yet heard. I suppose this should not surprise me. I have seen a statue of Mary crowned with twelve stars in front of a Catholic Church in La Plata, New Mexico. ​

That interpretation of Revelations has been around over 1000 years longer than the idea of Sola Scriptura. >>






Being wrong for a thousand years doesn't make it any better.



I am not completely certain whether the woman who stands on the moon in Revelation 12 should be taken as the Jews or as the church, the followers of Christ. The notion that it is Mary doesn't add up at all. Look at it this way. If the woman is the Jews, then the twelve stars on her head are the twelve Patriarchs or the twelve tribes of Israel. If the woman is the church, the twelve stars on her head are the twelve Apostles. If the woman is Mary, the twelve stars on her head mean …, they mean …. Hmm. They don't mean anything in particular, do they?



Further, in Revelation 12 the woman is persecuted and flees to the desert and is pursued by the dragon, presumably Satan. If the woman is the Jews, this refers to the persecution of the Jews, both a feature of the ancient world and of the modern world. If the woman is the church, this refers to the persecution of the church, again something that happened in the ancient world and is still happening in many parts of the world today. If the woman is Mary, then fleeing to the desert and being pursued by the dragon means …. it means … . Hmm. We've hit a stone wall again. Mary fled just after the birth of Jesus, although we are told that she and Joseph went to Egypt, not specifically into a desert. But Revelation 12 is telling us about events considerably after this, after Jesus ascended.



*



*

 

[Dale]

I was a Baptist for 30+ years. I remember sitting through countless sermons that were all about good advice on how to be nice. Parenting tips, marriage tips, relationship tips, witnessing tips, even tipping tips once, I remember.

Sermons are not for giving tips or advice. Sermons are for preaching the Law in all its sternness to convict us of sin and kill our old man, and for proclaiming the Gospel in all its sweetness, that God has sent his Son Jesus Christ to save sinners, not by anything they could ever think, say or do, but solely because of what Jesus Christ has done for us.

The culture of many Baptist churches is to preach law and gospel to the unsaved, but once saved, to yolk them once again with the law, even though it may be a kinder, gentler kind of law. "Be nice to each other" is just as much law, and just as ultimately unattainable as is "Be perfect as your God is perfect."

I'm having trouble making sense of this.
On one hand, you say that “sermons are for preaching the law in all its sternness”.
Then you accuse Baptists of yolking people to the law.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.



Is your experience with American Baptists, Southern Baptists or what?



*



*

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm having trouble making sense of this.
On one hand, you say that “sermons are for preaching the law in all its sternness”.
Then you accuse Baptists of yolking people to the law.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

We preach the law in all sternness not as an end in itself, but as God's appointed means to show the sinner their sin so that we may preach the gospel to show them God's grace. Our problem with the American Baptist/evangelical use of the law is not the law itself, but the fact that the point of sermons is so often summed up by the law and not the gospel.

Is your experience with American Baptists, Southern Baptists or what?

My personal experience is with Southern Baptists. I can't speak to Tangible.

 

[Tangible]

My experience is being raised by a staunch Southern Baptist mother, growing up in a small, conservative American Baptist congregation, and worshiping over the years in various affiliated Baptist churches, unaffiliated Baptist churches, and baptistic non-denominational churches.