Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Zenit ^ | April 25, 2007

Posted on 04/25/2007 4:41:04 PM PDT by NYer

Cites Example of Origen

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 25, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Prayerful reading of Scripture, and the consequent reform of life, is the secret to the constant renewal of the Church, Benedict XVI says.

The Pope affirmed that today when speaking of Origen of Alexandria at the general audience in St. Peter's Square. He continued with his series of catechesis on early Church Fathers.

Origen, "true teacher … brilliant theologian … exemplary witness of the doctrine he taught … the most prolific author of the first three Christian centuries," brought about an "irreversible turn in Christian thought," the Holy Father said.

"He grounded theology in the explanations of the Scriptures; or we could also say that his theology is the perfect symbiosis between theology and exegesis," the Pontiff explained.

He added: "The characterizing mark of Origen's doctrine seems to reside in his incessant invitation to pass from the letter to the spirit of the Scriptures, to progress in the knowledge of God.

"We can say, therefore, that the central nucleus of Origen's immense literary works consists in his 'three-pronged reading' of the Bible."

Three prongs

Benedict XVI explained Origen's methodology in studying sacred Scripture.

"To know what is actually written and to know what this text wanted to say intentionally and initially," was Origen's first step, the Pope said.

He explained how Origen used a system of columns to evaluate all the possible meanings of the original biblical language. For example, in the first column, he would put the Hebrew original. And in five parallel columns, Origen would do a transliteration and four different translations into Greek. He thus tried "to know exactly what is written," the Holy Father explained.

The second prong was reading Scripture along with its most famous commentaries. "He proceeds almost verse by verse, probing amply and deeply, with philological and doctrinal notes," the Pope added.

Finally, Benedict XVI continued: "Origen dedicated himself a great deal to the preaching of the Bible, adapting himself to varied audiences. In any case, as we see in his Homilies, the teacher, dedicated to systematic interpretation of verses, breaks them down into smaller verses.

"Origen takes every opportunity to mention the various senses of sacred Scripture that help or express a way of growth in faith: There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading; the second dimension is the 'moral' sense: what we must do as we live the Word; and in the end we have the 'spiritual' sense, the unity of Scripture in its diversity."

Multidimensional

Benedict XVI said that he followed a similar process in his recently released book.

"I tried somewhat, in my book 'Jesus of Nazareth,' to show the multiple dimensions of the Word in today's world, of sacred Scripture, that must first of all be respected in the historical sense," he said. "But this sense brings us toward Christ, in the light of the Holy Spirit, and shows us the way, how to live."

The Pope invited the faithful to follow Origen's example: "I invite you to welcome the teachings of this great teacher of the faith into your hearts.

"He reminds us that in the prayerful reading of Scripture and in a coherent way of life, the Church is renewed and rejuvenated."



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Prayer; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2007 4:41:05 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Read the Bible! Subscribe to Salvation’s Daily Mass Readings list.


2 posted on 04/25/2007 4:44:03 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Lectio Divina
3 posted on 04/25/2007 4:49:15 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible

Amen to that. Reading the Bible did wonders for Martin Luther!

4 posted on 04/25/2007 5:29:19 PM PDT by newgeezer (fundamentalist, regarding the Holy Bible AND the Constitution. Words mean things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

He forgot leave 7 books in the Bible.

Forsooth.


5 posted on 04/25/2007 5:47:22 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I can think of a few Freepers on the religion forum who should read this.


6 posted on 04/25/2007 6:10:46 PM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Yeah, it made him a heretic who wandered from the one true Church.
But seriously, must a Protestant start snarking in every thread about Catholicism? Is that some kind of FR rule I missed?


7 posted on 04/25/2007 7:50:05 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Amen to that. Reading the Bible did wonders for Martin Luther!

It got him a head start tearing entire books out and throwing them away because they didn't fit his own personal interpretation of scripture.

8 posted on 04/25/2007 7:52:33 PM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cammie

It’s not all Protestants, not even a large minority.

Just a vocal clan flying a hateful flag.


9 posted on 04/25/2007 7:53:28 PM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Point taken.


10 posted on 04/25/2007 8:09:17 PM PDT by cammie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
Pope's full address
11 posted on 04/25/2007 8:15:17 PM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ping to check out the thread later


12 posted on 04/25/2007 9:22:52 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The article quotes Benedict as having said "the central nucleus of Origen's immense literary works consists in his 'three-pronged reading' of the Bible." He further states that "the second prong was reading Scripture along with its most famous commentaries". Let's think about this for a second. Let's even lay aside the obvious question, "How does Benedict know how Origen went about his studies?"

Origen lived from about 155 A.D. to about 254 A.D. How many commentaries could possibly have existed? Certainly there were a few who put to paper their ideas (Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Clement, etc.), but were these really commentaries? Commentaries of what? Scripture?

According to the article, Benedict "explained Origen's methodology in studying sacred Scripture". The RCC claims that the New Testament was not cannonized until its council of Trent in 1545 A.D. Prior to that, we are to believe that all of Christendom was in a daze of confusion as to which writings were authentic and authoritative. If this is the case, what Scripture could Origen possibly have had around 200 A.D.? At best he'd have had a collection of letters and writings from a variety of sources, but without the guidance of the RCC, how would he have known which were inspired and which were fraud?

It seems that Benedict's own words drive nails in the coffin of oft debunked RCC positions. For starters, the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen. Yes, there was a church at Rome, but it had not yet morphed into what would become the RCC. Christians, at the time of Origen, were under persecution. Constantine hadn't yet "embraced" Christianity, and the church at Rome had not yet become vogue with the Roman elite. Hence it had not yet gained political influence, and its paganization had not yet begun.

Next, the full set of letters that would become the New Testament were in circulation among and between the many congregations of Believers. The vast majority of such letters were generally accepted as inspired, authoritative, and known to be authentic. Early church "theologians", such as Origen, quoted liberally from the letters that would be included in the New Testament. In fact, the entirety of the New Testament could be assembled from the writings of these early authors. So the reality is that the books and epistles that would eventually be canonized as New Testament Scripture were understood to be such from the very earliest time. No "council" 14 centuries after the fact was necessary.

The idea that there could be many and various possible meanings and translations (see the "first prong") is ridiculous. While translations do vary, the differences are in nuance and word selection. Seldom is there a wide difference in meaning. Could it be that Benny wants to sow suspicion in the minds of his flock? Is his intent in sowing this suspicion to provide a "justified" escape from the many conflicts and contradictions between RCC doctrine and actual Scripture?

Why would Benedict want to promote the idea of reading Scripture alongside the "most famous commentaries" (second prong)? Should we substitute the word "catholic" for "famous"? Could it be that ol' Benedict wants to be sure that if his "faithful" actually do start reading the Bible, they have a catholic guidebook next to them to "clarify" the discrepancies?

What about the "third prong" that Benedict assigns to Origen? Frankly I found the statements made to be mostly gibberish. However, the key statement is, There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading. Allow me to translate this into plain English: "Listen to the RCC, and don't believe your lyin' eyes!" Basically, Benedict doesn't want his flock to take the Bible at its Word. The "deeper" meanings (read, contradictory) require more "insight" (read, purposeful misrepresentation).

I am very encouraged by this message from Benedict. It means that more and more catholics are reading the Bible. Let's pray that the Truth will set more and more free!

13 posted on 04/25/2007 10:02:32 PM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
The RCC claims that the New Testament was not cannonized until its council of Trent in 1545 A.D.

Nope. The Church never claimed that.

It seems that Benedict's own words drive nails in the coffin of oft debunked RCC positions. For starters, the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen. Yes, there was a church at Rome, but it had not yet morphed into what would become the RCC.

Wrong again! Sounds like you've been reading too many of those tracts that make wild claims about the Church.

I am very encouraged by this message from Benedict. It means that more and more catholics are reading the Bible. Let's pray that the Truth will set more and more free!

Catholics have been reading the Bible for ages. You and your fellow travelers may read the Bible, but do you actually comprehend it? YOPIOS is not proper theology.

14 posted on 04/25/2007 10:08:08 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Nope. The Church never claimed that.

I stand corrected. The council at Trent reaffirmed of the the New Testament canon.

The Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Synod of Carthage in 397 A.D. were the first two "councils" where key elders of the many congregations agreed on the list of books to be included. However, the "bishop of Rome" (I can't remember if the arrogant title "pope" had been assumed yet), did not attend. However, a subsequent "pope" conveniently added his name to the attendance records of those meetings to make sure Rome was properly represented.

Wrong again! Sounds like you've been reading too many of those tracts that make wild claims about the Church.

I guess those false idols (er... statues of saints), the esteemed goddess (er... Mary), and the many assorted other items, practices, and superstitions were instituted by God.

You and your fellow travelers may read the Bible, but do you actually comprehend it?

God does not write in code. The Bible is plainly written for all men. There's no need to have a commentary alongside Scripture while reading it.

YOPIOS is not proper theology.

For those who don't know, YOPIOS = "Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture".

I am not aware that I have put forth any Scripture in this thread. Also, how would you define "proper theology"? Would that be the theology approved by the RCC? Isn't the Bible the ultimate theology? Doesn't your church claim that all its theology is based upon the Bible? If that is the case, then why not simply cut out the middle man and read the Bible yourself? Why do you need someone else to tell you what it means? Isn't that a bit risky, given the eternal implications of being wrong? Also, given the many weighty tomes containing RCC doctrine, wouldn't it be easier and simpler to just read the Bible?

15 posted on 04/25/2007 10:38:06 PM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Wow! Bump to the top of the page. I love this!


16 posted on 04/25/2007 10:54:29 PM PDT by Salvation (" With God all things are possible. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thanks for the advertisement. People need to FReepmail me to get on the Daily Readings list.


17 posted on 04/25/2007 10:56:57 PM PDT by Salvation (" With God all things are possible. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Luther adopted five solas that were really not in the Bible.

Sola scriptura (”by Scripture alone”)
Sola fide (”by faith alone”)
Solus Christus (”Christ alone”)
Sola gratia (”by grace alone”)
Soli Deo gloria (”Glory to God alone”)

He even added some of those words “faith alone” comes to mind, to the Scripture and excluded other books because they disproved his assertions.


18 posted on 04/25/2007 11:04:46 PM PDT by Salvation (" With God all things are possible. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

*Amen to that. Reading the Bible did wonders for Martin Luther!*

i guess you’re being sarcastic with your first post?


19 posted on 04/26/2007 12:04:08 AM PDT by rogernz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
For starters, the RCC did not exist at the time of Origen. Yes, there was a church at Rome, but it had not yet morphed into what would become the RCC. Christians, at the time of Origen, were under persecution. Constantine hadn't yet "embraced" Christianity, and the church at Rome had not yet become vogue with the Roman elite. Hence it had not yet gained political influence, and its paganization had not yet begun.

PJR, where are you getting your history of this era? It most certainly does not accord with what has come down to us from the sources of the time. For example, this passage from Irenaeus of Lyons' Against Heresies, which was written *during Origen's lifetime*:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Please explain this passage.
20 posted on 04/26/2007 6:11:55 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345

You claim that the Bible is “written plainly for all men” and that there is no need for commentaries on it. If that is the case, why are there so many different Protestant denominations that argue over various interpretations? examples: rapture vs. no rapture, pre-millenium vs. post-millenium, necessity of baptism for salvation vs. baptism as a sign or seal, belief in the Trinity vs. no belief in the Trinity, etc. etc. There are over 33,000 different denominations today, usually started when a person or group disagrees with an interpretation of Scripture and leaves one church to start another. Jesus does not want this, as we can clearly see from these verses in the 17th Chapter of St. John where He prays 5 times “that they all may be one”:
“11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”

Your argument that Protestants can read the Bible and interpret it for themselves is laughable. 33,000 different interpretations of the same thing cannot all be correct. And yes, the interpretation of Scripture made by the Catholic Church is the correct one, having been the same for 2,000 years.

In addition, Protestants do not even believe certain passages of the Bible such as:

Matthew 16:17-19
John 6
I Corinthians 11: 23-29

When asked about the meaning or interpretation of these passages, Protestants will say that “Jesus didn’t really mean that” or “He was speaking figuratively” or “it doesn’t really mean what it says.” That sounds like “interpretation” to me! It is certainly not taking the words literally and at face value, but putting spin on it, and believing (or not believing) whatever you want it to mean. If you REALLY believe that Scripture is the revealed word of God, you would believe Jesus when He said: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51 and “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54 If you REALLY believed Jesus, you would believe that the wafer and wine at Holy Communion become Jesus’ body and blood, as the Catholic Church does, because Jesus said, “This is my body” Luke 22:19 and “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:20. But you DON’T believe Holy Scripture. You don’t believe the words mean what they say and you want to put your own interpretation to them. And then you have the nerve to criticize the Catholic Church for taking Jesus’ words literally! What you are saying is “I don’t like those verses, and I don’t like the fact that the Catholic Church takes them literally, so I’ll just argue with the Catholic Church and that way I won’t have to believe what Scripture actually says.”

You also said: “I guess those false idols (er... statues of saints), the esteemed goddess (er... Mary), and the many assorted other items, practices, and superstitions were instituted by God.” How do you know they weren’t? Were you there when the Church was started 2,000 years ago? You might be interested to know that the tombs of the early Christians were decorated with pictures of the martyrs and that the martyrs’ bones were venerated as items of holiness. These facts can be confirmed by reading the writings of the early Christians - the Early Church fathers (”bishops” not “elders”).

As far as the commentaries that Origen read, even St. Peter made a commentary on what is now Scripture when he said: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16. The Early Fathers’ letters were commentaries on Scripture, either Old Testament, or what is now New Testament. Just because these writings had not been made a part of the Canon didn’t mean they weren’t out there and being read and commented on from the beginning.

And by the way, the word “pope” is derived from “papa.” How is that arrogant? The Pope is our Holy Father. He is our leader. It is not arrogant. Once again, you as a Protestant you do not believe Jesus or Holy Scripture: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19 Once again, the Catholic Church interprets this passage literally and Protestants say “Jesus doesn’t really mean it.”

Protestants make a lot of noise about believing “Scripture Alone” except they don’t even believe all of it. During the “reformation” Protestants even went so far as to take out books of the Bible because the books supported practices they wanted to suppress (i.e., praying for the dead as found in 2 Maccabees), and Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of Scripture because he thought it should be there. If he and other Protestants had truly believed that Scripture was the inspired Word of God, they would have never dared to add or subtract from it. This just proves the point that Protestants believe in “Scripture Alone” only when it serves their purposes and when it doesn’t, they change it.


21 posted on 04/26/2007 6:22:23 AM PDT by nanetteclaret ("Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there's always laughter and good red wine." Hilaire Belloc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Origen takes every opportunity to mention the various senses of sacred Scripture that help or express a way of growth in faith; There is the 'literal' sense, but this hides depths that are not apparent upon a first reading; the second dimension is the 'moral' sense: what we must do as we live the Word; and in the end we have the 'spiritual' sense, the unity of Scripture in its diversity."

Food for thought for "the Bible sez....." crowd.

22 posted on 04/26/2007 6:24:04 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345; Antoninus

And I am curious to know where this idea came up that Constantine “paganized” the Church. It’s pure and simple fabrication, and a monstrous calumny.

What historical evidence from the time can you give me to back up that claim? What author? Eusebius? Sozomen? Socrates Scholasticus?

I think my friend, you will find no such thing is *ever* reported in the ancient historians...some of whom actually knew Constantine personally...and that whichever modern historians you have consulted made it up out of whole cloth.


23 posted on 04/26/2007 6:29:08 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Please explain this passage.

First, your source is suspect. It's a rabidly papal web site with an agenda.

Second, even if there's a record of this, just because something is old doesn't make it true. We've seen countless, ancient, intentional frauds. And modern frauds are penned daily.

Sorry, not convinced.

24 posted on 04/26/2007 6:53:03 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret

Wow! So many mistaken ideas and speculation, where does one begin! I got it, nowhere.


25 posted on 04/26/2007 6:55:08 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345

LOL and your sources are safe. Sounds like someone has spent too much time cuddling with his Boettner for his own good.


26 posted on 04/26/2007 6:55:31 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Claud

I never said that Constantine “paganized” the Church. I said that after Constantine “embraced” Christianity the church at Rome became vogue, gained political influence, and then became paganized.


27 posted on 04/26/2007 6:57:51 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

I guess I just don’t have enough high falutin’ training (indoctrination?) to get your joke.


28 posted on 04/26/2007 6:59:23 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345

So when did the paganism happen then? Can you give me a century, or was it just a gradual thing?

And how did it become pagan? What changed?


29 posted on 04/26/2007 7:03:37 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345

Try this website instead, I’m pretty sure the guy that runs it is not Catholic:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

This is no fraud. It is not modern agenda. This is a real, live author from the 2nd century whose treatise against heresy has been preserved for over 1800 years.

And to your point that “just because something is old doesn’t make it true.” You’re right. BUT the theory that I think you are offering here says that the Church of Rome was corrupted with all the papal trappings after the time of Constantine, and that before that time Christianity knew no such thing. But it is clear, not only from Irenaeus but also other authors like Ignatius of Antioch that the Church of Rome *did* enjoy pre-eminent authority in the Christian world way before Constantine was even born. And if that’s the case, there’s no way you can say that Rome was corrupted: it believes now what it has always believed.

So yes, Irenaeus may have been wrong. But can you find me any early writer who disproves him?


30 posted on 04/26/2007 7:17:35 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Claud
So when did the paganism happen then?

Don't have the time to give you all the details. Chide away, I deserve it.

What changed?

An honest reading of Acts and the Epistles demonstrates that many churches are far from the Christianity of the Bible. I've picked on the RCC here because of the topic of the thread, but it's not alone. The fact is that as soon as someone writes a book of doctrine to "explain" Scripture, error is introduced. Subsequent tomes have to be produced to expand, expound, and explain. All the while the road taken diverges from the "highway to heaven". The RCC has been at it for a long time, so it is rich with non-Scriptural targets. However, one will observe the exact same phenomenom in the Anglican/Episcopal church, the many and various "holy roller" churches, and others.

It's best to leave God's Word alone. Adding creeds and catechisms, while surely well intentioned, only leads away from God's Revelation to man.

31 posted on 04/26/2007 7:18:25 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

...and how would you characterize your post #8?


32 posted on 04/26/2007 7:19:44 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
The Bible is plainly written for all men. There's no need to have a commentary alongside Scripture while reading it.

That's funny, because the Bible says that there are things in Paul's letters which are "hard to understand," which the "ignorant and unstable" twist, "as they do the other Scriptures". [2 Pt 3:15-16]

33 posted on 04/26/2007 7:41:37 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
The fact is that as soon as someone writes a book of doctrine to "explain" Scripture, error is introduced.

Christians have been doing that since the beginning. I guess you don't view the Holy Spirit as living and active in preserving Christ's church from error, which is another way in which your views diverge from Scripture.

BTW, you realize that you just disqualified yourself from ever commenting on Scripture, don't you? After all, someone writing an Internet post to explain Scripture is just as subject to error.

34 posted on 04/26/2007 7:44:13 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
Don't have the time to give you all the details. Chide away, I deserve it.

No chiding necessary, none of us have time to give a dissertation here. But I'll just ask you to keep that question in mind--what became pagan and how--and read about it in greater depth some other time when you get a chance.

An honest reading of Acts and the Epistles demonstrates that many churches are far from the Christianity of the Bible.

Well, we differ on what an honest reading is. I read Acts and I see bishops, I see sacraments. And I'm not sure that that debate gets us very far (it hasn't for the last 500 years).

So that's why I'm taking this discusson outside the New Testament and into history. Namely...the idea out there is that Rome used to be an "Acts church", but that it gradually changed and paganized until it became the RCC today. That theory carries with it a historical assumption--namely, that Rome at some point changed what it believed from an essentially Evangelical/Scriptural position to a Catholic/pagan position--usually around the time of Constantine.

It's that historical assumption that I am challenging. Because when you look through the historical sources from that entire era (A.D. 30-A.D. 600), you really don't see any fundamental change. You see Christian writers all the way back to the 100s and 200s talking about the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. You see writers saying that it is *imperative* that Christians stay in union with their bishops, and that all the bishops stay in union with the Bishop of Rome.

So I don't understand where all this talk comes from of Rome being "corrupted" when it was saying the same things in A.D. 600 as it was in A.D. 100 or 200.

35 posted on 04/26/2007 7:49:42 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Yes, and Peter warns them 17 beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I don't see where he encourages them to do anything but grow in their knowledge - perhaps to be less untaught and unstable. Also, I don't see where he directed them to lean on the understanding of non-Inspired writers, quite the contrary.

36 posted on 04/26/2007 7:50:41 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345

Boettner wrote a book called “History of the Roman Church” or something like that. A very anti-Catholic work and most of it is rather disreputable. It is no longer considered the seminal work it once was, its been pretty much debunked. You do see it raise its ugly head in certain circles. Not your apparently, and that is a good thing.


37 posted on 04/26/2007 7:51:57 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I guess you don't view the Holy Spirit as living and active in preserving Christ's church from error

There is no guarantee that man will not enter into error. However the Church of Christ (not of man) is perfect.

you realize that you just disqualified yourself from ever commenting on Scripture, don't you? After all, someone writing an Internet post to explain Scripture is just as subject to error.

I can comment all I like. I agree that anything anyone proposes ought to be checked against Scripture. I am no exception.

38 posted on 04/26/2007 7:53:18 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer
in the first column, he would put the Hebrew original. And in five parallel columns, Origen would do a transliteration and four different translations into Greek.

Wow! Had heard this before, but it is interesting to see it on FR.

39 posted on 04/26/2007 7:55:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (3 May '07 3:14 PM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Wow. New Pope acting like a wannabee protestant. :-)


40 posted on 04/26/2007 8:56:39 AM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

A response to him in his own idiom.


41 posted on 04/26/2007 8:58:56 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
I agree that anything anyone proposes ought to be checked against Scripture.

According to your earlier post, any manmade commentaries on Scripture always contain error, so it would seem that the result of that comparison is a foregone conclusion.

42 posted on 04/26/2007 9:04:08 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
Also, I don't see where he directed them to lean on the understanding of non-Inspired writers, quite the contrary.

Both he and Peter appointed and ordained bishops to follow in their footsteps. Those bishops preached, taught, and wrote. Christians were expected to listen to them and be obedient to them.

Please look at 2 Tm 2:2 and Hebrews 13:17, both of which clearly speak to the appointment and authority of "non-inspired" church leadership.

43 posted on 04/26/2007 9:07:39 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Sorry ... should have been “both he and Paul”.


44 posted on 04/26/2007 9:08:05 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I see nowhere that the SERVANTS to the congregations were granted any authority to inject new "enlightenment beyond the teachings of the Apostles. Oh contraire, Paul says in Galatians 1:8,

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

45 posted on 04/26/2007 9:15:39 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345
...rabidly papal...

Nothing like outing yourself. LOL

46 posted on 04/26/2007 9:29:22 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

You’re living the truth of your name abundantly.


47 posted on 04/26/2007 9:31:51 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Was never trying to hide myself


48 posted on 04/26/2007 9:35:56 AM PDT by pjr12345 (What is it about "The Terrorists want to kill us!" don't you people understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pjr12345

I should hope not. The anti-Catholic hate drips from your posts.


49 posted on 04/26/2007 9:46:37 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
It got him a head start tearing entire books out and throwing them away

Time was, the Catholic Church didn't want any lay people reading the bible. Translators were hunted down and executed.

50 posted on 04/26/2007 10:46:30 AM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson