Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[MPaul]

The nature of the posting in this thread and the one on the canon has been so disgusting and dishonest. It always was my feeling that I merely should avoid the issues on differences Protestants have with Catholics. However, I had been praying for a long time that God would make clear to me how he wanted me to view and react with Catholics. Now, I have come to realize by my experience in these threads that my initial feeling was wrong. When I do have the time I am going to make an effort, hopefully a well measured one, to set out why the beliefs of the Catholics are delusional and harmful. I thank God for helping me through these threads to come to this conclusion.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No, I think the priority of Mark is a joke. Study where it came from -- ungodly liberals. It is total theory that means nothing, except it was set out to discredit the bible, and that, of course, has real significance to Catholics. But this is a very long and complex subject, and it takes a lot of time that I just do not have.

Oh! Boy! There they go the Biblical Studies. If you move one finger outside the box = ungodly liberals. It seems liberal is a bad word. Ungodly is not bad. Now unGodly is very, very bad.

I thought Biblical Studies came to brighten the Message of God.

So, everything in the Gospels happened exactly as it is told? Are not they part of a Tradition that was later written down by the Evangelists? If not, how were they written? In a spell, by one writer, without the help of the Community?

Sorry, so you believe in Adam and Eve, Noah and Abel and Cain ? It is exactly as it is written there? There are no 2 accounts of the creation of the Universe, one Yawist another Eloist? Was Adam created from the clay and Eve from his rib?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

What does it matter who wrote their's first? They were accounts written down be four different men. Those who assembled the books of the bible could have assembled them in any kind of order they wanted to. The only thing that matters is what is written in them.

Mark inspired Luke and Matthew and these inspired John or not?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No, I read it. You're just not following me. And you are using "Tradition" in two senses, which is dishonest.

The theories on the JEDP sources of the OT and the oral tradition of the NT have been around for a very, very long time. They are theories by liberal scholars trying to discredit the inspiration of the bible. When people rely on them, they do exactly what Christ said in the verse I quoted from Mark 7 -- make the Word of God of no effect for the sake of tradition. The JEPD theories are totally rejected by Protestants. However, some Christian scholars uphold the oral tradition theory for the NT, but using an entirely different concept of "tradition" than the "Holy Tradition" of the RCC. These scholars are sucked into the theory, as it makes scholars an elite class of Christians. There is no real evidence of the oral tradition or the priority of Mark, which is how it all began, but it is all theory. There is nothing in the bible to uphold the theory. However, the bible relies on secular and outside sources constantly. That does not make these sources authority -- it is merely how an accredited prophets at times set things out. The important thing is not the source, but that the prophets were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were verified as a spokesman for God.

When you argue for Holy Tradition, that is exactly what you do, you make the Word of God of no effect, you trash its true significance.

However, if all you want is unity, then please appeal to your local priest, bishop, and the Vatican, that they must give up Holy Tradition for the sake of unity. That will be a lot easier than trashing the bible with the Protestants. And you can also emphasize to your people as well, your argument that the truth is not important, only unity.

And however, it is obvious that you have not really studied the Protestant position on the canon and the bible. You cannot refute that position until you do so in depth. Otherwise, you just set things out that have already been responded to 100 years ago, or you set out the Protestant position invalidly. But it is not going to be easy to learn what is involved with the Protestant position, because it is a very long study to consider all the issues involved. I would say you should set aside a minimum of several months of study, if not years.

I would like to know what you call "Holy Tradition".
I use in one way and it is not that, in another I am dishonest. But what is the "Holy Tradition"? Never seen here in Europe the word "Holy" used with Tradition. I dont know what to give up as I have not got the faintest idea of what you call Holy Tradition. I know what I mean by Tradition but you call me names like dishonest... How can I give up what I do not know ?

You say that God inspired one person to write a certain book. But you think it impossible for God to inspire a Community to write a certain book. That the Tradition of that Community be considered the Word of God, for they were the People of God, the Chosen People of God, then you consider "That does not make these sources authority". Only the "accredited prophets". Funny that God cannot speak through a Community !!

Yes, I am ready to study Protestantism, according to the time I have...

 

[Root of Jesse]

This simply is not true. It is total misrepresentation. As I have posted in the two threads, wherein we have dealt with the issue, the books of the bible were recognized immediately for what they were. However, there were disputes on some books of the bible, especially since people were putting out false Scriptures. Eventually, this lead to the councils of the 4th century. The Apocrypha was only recognized in North Africa, based on a fable, and even that was not consistent with biblical criteria on biblical writings. Based on that criteria, the Jews in control of the temple are the evidence of what prophets were verified by the community of the people of God at the time. However, even though the Apocrypha was recognized by some Christians in North Africa, it was disputed what these books were even then, and the Apocrypha itself designated that inspiration had already ceased, as I have noted before.

Now, I really am trying to stop posting, as I've got too much going on now.

Ah, no they weren't. There were lots of Christian writings, including the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and many, many others. Some adhered to some of these, some did not. When it came time to settle on a canon, they examined the texts against what the Apostles and their successors taught to determine the Canonicity.

 

[Albion]

I would like to know what you call "Holy Tradition".
I use in one way and it is not that, in another I am dishonest. But what is the "Holy Tradition"? Never seen here in Europe the word "Holy" used with Tradition.

Can't speak for Europe, but many Catholics and Orthodox here use the term to mean Tradition, i.e. the stream of opinion that supposedly is a second source of divine revelation that the church relies upon in addition to the Bible. Some other people use the term "Sacred Tradition."

I dont know what to give up as I have not got the faintest idea of what you call Holy Tradition.

Sure you do. You talk about it all the time. You just don't include the word "Holy."

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, I think the priority of Mark is a joke. Study where it came from -- ungodly liberals. It is total theory that means nothing, except it was set out to discredit the bible, and that, of course, has real significance to Catholics. But this is a very long and complex subject, and it takes a lot of time that I just do not have.

Actually, it's Protestant theory that Mark came first. Catholics believe that Matthew came first, and the order listed is correct. Catholics do not discredit the Bible, that's an idiotic idea. We read more of the Bible in worship than any Protestant sect. In worship, we read the entire Bible and learn about it every three years.

 

[Albion]

We read more of the Bible in worship than any Protestant sect. In worship, we read the entire Bible and learn about it every three years.

Now, how is any discussion supposed to profit from a blatantly untrue comment like that one? It's already been pointed out that the three-year lectionary does not cover all of the Bible. Other churches do at least as well with their lectionaries; and some Protestant churches specialize in studying the Bible through from start to finish, line by line. No Catholic church can claim that it does that, although I fully expect you to write back and say they all do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What does it matter who wrote their's first? They were accounts written down be four different men. Those who assembled the books of the bible could have assembled them in any kind of order they wanted to. The only thing that matters is what is written in them.

The Gospels were written to different audiences. Matthew was first, it was written to the Jews. Luke was next, it was written to the Gentiles. Mark was written to the Romans, John was written to combat heresies coming out. They're in the order of how Christianity was being spread.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The nature of the posting in this thread and the one on the canon has been so disgusting and dishonest. It always was my feeling that I merely should avoid the issues on differences Protestants have with Catholics. However, I had been praying for a long time that God would make clear to me how he wanted me to view and react with Catholics. Now, I have come to realize by my experience in these threads that my initial feeling was wrong. When I do have the time I am going to make an effort, hopefully a well measured one, to set out why the beliefs of the Catholics are delusional and harmful. I thank God for helping me through these threads to come to this conclusion.

Please post it so we Catholics can critique it. They are very well not delusional, in fact very well thought out. And certainly not harmful.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Mark inspired Luke and Matthew and these inspired John or not?

This is a very late theory, in fact, 18th-19th century.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Now, how is any discussion supposed to profit from a blatantly untrue comment like that one? It's already been pointed out that the three-year lectionary does not cover all of the Bible. Other churches do at least as well with their lectionaries; and some Protestant churches specialize in studying the Bible through from start to finish, line by line. No Catholic church can claim that it does that, although I fully expect you to write back and say they all do.

No, it's absolutely true. About 80% of the Bible is read in liturgy, and bible study is certainly encouraged. Most parishes do sponsor Bible Studies. I wouldn't speak for "all" because I haven't visited "all". But those I have visited do have Bible studies, and there are very in-depth programs we can undertake as individuals or groups.

FWIW, sitting around talking about what we feel the scripture speaks to us is not Bible study.

 

[athenken]

Mark inspired Luke and Matthew and these inspired John or not?

The very idea that one of these men could "inspire" others to write their books would completely undermine the whole thing. They were all inspired by the Holy Spirit their own books.

As for communities, rather than individual people, being inspired to write these books is false. One example we can look to is the fact that these books have individual people's names on them, not the name of a community. These books were inspired by the Holy Spirit to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The order in which they were placed in the New Testament is immaterial.

 

[Albion]

No, it's absolutely true. About 80% of the Bible is read in liturgy,

So, it's now 80% instead of 100%. Thank you.

and bible study is certainly encouraged. Most parishes do sponsor Bible Studies.

But that wasn't your claim. You said:

In worship, we read the entire Bible and learn about it every three years

which you've now admitted was not true.

FWIW, sitting around talking about what we feel the scripture speaks to us is not Bible study.

But when it's Catholics doing it, then it's "sponsor(ed) Bible Studies," huh? LOL

If I didn't make it clear, when I wrote that some Protestant churches study the Bible, line for line, it meant DURING THE WORSHIP service, not "sitting around talking."

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, it's now 80% instead of 100%. Thank you.



But that wasn't your claim. You said
which you've not admitted was not true.



But when it's Catholics doing it, then it's "sponsor(ed) Bible Studies," huh? LOL

If I didn't make it clear, when I wrote that some Protestant churches study the Bible, line for line, it meant DURING THE WORSHIP service, not "sitting around talking."

Not in my experience, which actually has more Protestant experience than Catholic. In worship, a few lines or a short passage is read and preached on. Sometimes using a few other verses. Bible studies you speak of are separate from worship services.
My original statements was that we hear more of the Bible in worship than most Protestant Churches. Those parts we don't read are covered elsewhere, for example, Chronicles and Kings cover the same thing, the life of David. Also, those of us who pray the Divine Office get the entire Bible in liturgical worship.

But that's not how Catholics do Bible Study. We have a Magisterium that has authority to explain scripture.

 

[athenken]

Not in my experience, which actually has more Protestant experience than Catholic. In worship, a few lines or a short passage is read and preached on. Sometimes using a few other verses. Bible studies you speak of are separate from worship services.
My original statements was that we hear more of the Bible in worship than most Protestant Churches. Those parts we don't read are covered elsewhere, for example, Chronicles and Kings cover the same thing, the life of David. Also, those of us who pray the Divine Office get the entire Bible in liturgical worship.

But that's not how Catholics do Bible Study. We have a Magisterium that has authority to explain scripture.

I have to agree with at least part of this statement. I grew up in a protestant (CRC) church where as soon as the pastor was done reading the verse he based his sermon on their was a collective closing of the bibles and a resounding thump when everyone put them back in the pews.

 

[Albion]

Not in my experience, which actually has more Protestant experience than Catholic. In worship, a few lines or a short passage is read and preached on.

Well, what's in YOUR experience doesn't define the issue. You don't want to hear about the Roman Catholic Church based upon what's "in my experience."

But that's not how Catholics do Bible Study. We have a Magisterium that has authority to explain scripture.

Then that's what you should have said in the first place rather than making up another "whopper."

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The very idea that one of these men could "inspire" others to write their books would completely undermine the whole thing. They were all inspired by the Holy Spirit their own books.

As for communities, rather than individual people, being inspired to write these books is false. One example we can look to is the fact that these books have individual people's names on them, not the name of a community. These books were inspired by the Holy Spirit to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The order in which they were placed in the New Testament is immaterial.

Oh! Boy! I did not say that Luke was inspired by Mark. Luke knew mark when he wrote his book. All Gospels were inspired by God. But John wrote a Gospel completely different from the others because he wanted to say things others had not said. But John's Gospel WAS INSPIRED BY GOD.

 

[athenken]

Oh! Boy! I did not say that Luke was inspired by Mark. Luke knew mark when he wrote his book. All Gospels were inspired by God. But John wrote a Gospel completely different from the others because he wanted to say things others had not said. But John's Gospel WAS INSPIRED BY GOD.

Then you really need to re-read the post I was referencing, because that is exactly what was being suggested. Of course, if what was meant was that they referred to the other's works for reference, then I concede the point, and they were not actually "inspired", though even then I see no reason for it as God would have specific things He wanted to convey in each of the different Gospels.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Then you really need to re-read the post I was referencing, because that is exactly what was being suggested. Of course, if what was meant was that they referred to the other's works for reference, then I concede the point, and they were not actually "inspired", though even then I see no reason for it as God would have specific things He wanted to convey in each of the different Gospels.

Sorry for not following the thread carefully.
If God did not want to convey different messages through different Gospels, why have them 4: it should be One Only.