"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father -- Two Liturgical Abuses at Once

Monday, July 07, 2008

"Orans" Posture and Hand-Holding During the Our Father Are Against the Rubrics (Instructions) For the Mass

Two liturgical abuses at once: "orans" posture and hand-holding during the Our Father

[ source ]

Colin B. Donovan, STL, over at the EWTN website, states that the "orans' posture in the congregation (arms outstretched in a "praying" or adoration position) is contrary to the rubrics:

The liturgical use of this position by the priest is spelled out in the rubrics (the laws governing how the Mass is said). It indicates his praying on BEHALF of us, acting as alter Christus as pastor of the flock, head of the body. . . .
It is never done by the Deacon, who does not represent the People before God but assists him who does.
Among the laity this practice began with the charismatic renewal. Used in private prayer it has worked its way into the Liturgy. It is a legitimate gesture to use when praying, as history shows, however, it is a private gesture when used in the Mass and in some cases conflicts with the system of signs which the rubrics are intended to protect. The Mass is not a private or merely human ceremony. The symbology of the actions, including such gestures, is definite and precise, and reflects the sacramental character of the Church's prayer. . . .
Our Father. The intention for lay people using the Orans position at this time is, I suppose, that we pray Our Father, and the unity of people and priest together is expressed by this common gesture of prayer. Although this gesture is not called for in the rubrics, it does at least seem, on the surface, to not be in conflict with the sacramental sign system at the point when we pray Our Father. I say on the surface, however, since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.
After Our Father. This liturgical disunity continues after the Our Father when some, though not all, who assumed the Orans position during the Our Father continue it through the balance of the prayers, until after "For thine is the kingdom etc." The rubrics provide that priest-concelebrants lower their extended hands, so that the main celebrant alone continues praying with hands extended, since he represents all, including his brother priests. So, we have the very anomalous situation that no matter how many clergy are present only one of them is praying with hands extended, accompanied by numbers of the laity.
So, while we shouldn't attribute bad will to those who honestly have felt that there was some virtue in doing this during the Mass, it is yet another case where good will can achieve the opposite of what it intends when not imbued with the truth, in this case the truth about the sacramental nature of the postures at Mass and their meaning.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, in an article about postures during the Our Father, agrees, and provides more documentation:

The Holy See has been concerned about the laity unduly aping the priest at Mass, and in the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration, an unprecedented conjunction of Vatican dicasteries wrote:

6 § 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 [i.e., "In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest."] are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

This instruction, incidentally, was approved by John Paul II in forma specifica, meaning that the pope invested it with his own authority and is binding on us with the pope's authority and not merely the authority of the authoring congregations.
Now, what gestures are proper to the priest celebrant? The orans gesture when praying on behalf of the people is certainly one of them.

An article in Adoremus Bulletin offers yet more proof that this is an abuse:
Many AB readers have been asking about the orans posture during the Our Father (orans means praying; here it refers to the gesture of praying with uplifted hands, as the priest does during various parts of the Mass).
In some dioceses in the United States, people are being told that they should adopt this gesture, though it is not a customary posture for prayer for Catholic laity. Sometimes people are told that their bishop mandates this change because the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) requires it or at least encourages it.
Thus it may be helpful to review the actual regulations on the orans posture.
Wht does the GIRM say?
First of all, nowhere in the current (2002) General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does it say that the orans posture is recommended for the congregation during the Our Father.

In GIRM 43 and 160, the paragraphs dealing with the people's posture during Mass, the only posture specified for the congregation at the Lord's Prayer is standing. It says nothing at all about what people do with their hands. This is not a change from the past.

The confusion arose among bishops in the 1990s, when some were suggesting the orans position in the ICEL Sacramentary, but not in the new Roman Missal. But even the Sacramentary revision was "specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal appeared." The article continues:

At their November 2001 meeting, the bishops discussed "adaptations" to the new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (or GIRM) of the new Missal (reported in AB February 2002). The proposal to introduce the orans posture for the people was not included even as an option in the US' "adaptations" to the GIRM.
Furthermore, the bishops did not forbid hand-holding, either, even though the BCL originally suggested this in 1995. The reason? A bishop said that hand-holding was a common practice in African-American groups and to forbid it would be considered insensitive.
Thus, in the end, all reference to any posture of the hands during the Our Father was omitted in the US-adapted GIRM. The orans posture is not only not required by the new GIRM, it is not even mentioned.
The approved US edition of the GIRM was issued in April 2003, and is accessible on the USCCB web site - http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Not on the list
The posture of the people during prayer at Mass is not one of the items in the GIRM list that bishop may change on his own authority (see GIRM 387). Thus it is not legitimate for a bishop to require people to assume the orans posture during the Our Father.
The GIRM does say that a bishop has the "responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful". He has the authority to see that practices in his diocese conform to the norms liturgical law, . . .

Holding hands during the Our Father is also clearly against the rubrics: thus should not be done on that basis alone. Catholic apologist Karl Keating wrote about this:

ORIGINS OF HAND-HOLDING
The current issue of the "Adoremus Bulletin" says this in response to a query from a priest in the Bronx:
"No gesture for the people during the Lord's Prayer is mentioned in the official documents. The late liturgist Fr. Robert Hovda promoted holding hands during this prayer, a practice he said originated in Alcoholics Anonymous. Some 'charismatic' groups took up the practice."
My long-time sense had been that hand-holding at the Our Father was an intrusion from charismaticism, but I had not been aware of the possible connection with AA. If this is the real origin of the practice, it makes it doubly odd: first, because hand-holding intrudes a false air of chumminess into the Mass (and undercuts the immediately-following sign of peace), and second, because modifications to liturgical rites ought to arise organically and not be borrowed from secular self-help groups.
Periodically, on "Catholic Answers Live" I am asked about hand-holding during Mass and explain that it is contrary to the rubrics. Usually I get follow-up e-mails from people who say, "But it's my favorite part of the Mass" or "We hold hands as a family, and it makes us feel closer."
About the latter I think, "It's good to feel close as a family, but you can hold hands at home or at the mall. The Mass has a formal structure that should be respected. That means you forgo certain things that you might do on the outside."
About the former comment I think, "If this is the high point of the Mass for you, you need to take Remedial Mass 101. The Mass is not a social event. It is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, and it is the loftiest form of prayer. It should be attended with appropriate solemnity."

* * * * *

Further comments, from interaction on the CHNI board. The words of Rick Luquette over there will be in green (official documents indented and in regular black) :
Currently the following is found from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship:

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.
Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture?
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

Well (to use the logical technique of reductio ad absurdum), if all gestures are left open, then could congregations spontaneously decide to hug one another during the Our Father? Or how about lifting up one arm heavenward? Or all turning towards each other (i.e., the center of the church)?
The General Instructions of the Roman Missal includes the following:

390. It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself.

These adaptations include
The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).
Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

So it appears that at present, there is no recommended position for the hands of the faithful at the Our Father.
I should think it is obvious that it would be either hands at the side or clasped or in the hands-joined prayer position. But is not the orans position specifically prohibited, since it is imitating the posture of the priest? As Colin B. Donovan wrote (as I cited):

. . . since while lay people are doing this the deacon, whose postures are governed by the rubrics, may not do it. So, we have the awkward disunity created by the priest making an appropriate liturgical gesture in accordance with the rubrics, the deacon not making the same gesture in accordance with the rubrics, some laity making the same gesture as the priest not in accordance with the rubrics, and other laity not making the gesture (for various reasons, including knowing it is not part of their liturgical role). In the end, the desire of the Church for liturgical unity is defeated.

Also, Jimmy Akin cited the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration (specifically approved by Pope John Paul II):

Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

That precludes the orans position, though it itself doesn't seem to prohibit hand-holding (because the priest is not doing that at this time). What is your counter-explanation for that? What you decline to call any abuse at all is called "abuses" and "a grave abuse" by this papally-approved document. If bishops say otherwise, then the faithful Catholic still has the right to appeal to Church-wide proclamations from the Vatican, which carry more authority than bishops, and are to be followed in cases of contradiction. Some priests, however, have refused to give communion to a kneeling recipient, when the Church has specifically stated that all Catholics have a right to receive kneeling. The document above also made reference to Canon 907 from the Catholic Code of Canon Law:

Can. 907 In the eucharistic celebration deacons and lay persons are not permitted to offer prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, or to perform actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.

Lacking specific instruction from the competent authority (the USCCB) you quote Jimmy Akin as saying holding hands during the Our Father is contrary to the rubrics. Following the link you provided to his article, he states:

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms.

This appears to be his rationale for declaring that holding hands is against the rubrics. Unfortunately, he does not give any authoritative reference for this statement. To the best of my knowledge, the definition of the word "standing" does not include "without doing anything fancy with your arms".
Let me cite him at greater length from this article:

Standing means standing without doing anything fancy with your arms. It is distinct, for example, from the orans posture, which the priest uses when he stands and prays with arms outstretched. It is also distinct from the hand-holding posture.
The latter is not expressly forbidden in liturgical law because it is one of those "Please don't eat the daisies" situations. The legislator (the pope) did not envision that anybody would try to alter the standing posture in this way. As a result, the practice is not expressly forbidden, the same way that standing on one foot and hopping up and down as an effort to get closer to God in heaven is not expressly forbidden.
In general what liturgical documents do is to say what people should be doing and not focus on what they should not be doing (though there are exceptions). To prevent "Please don't eat the daisies" situations, what the law does is prohibit things that aren't mentioned in the liturgical books. Here's the basic rule:

Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Akin is not the magisterium, of course, but he is a highly respected apologist who has written a book about rubrics in the Mass (Mass Confusion: The Do's and Don'ts of Catholic Worship; San Diego: Catholic Answers, 1999). He also regularly cites folks like canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters (who has written about liturgical confusion and need for further codification).
He also says:

Changing from standing to hand holding during the Lord's Prayer would be an alteration or addition of something provided for in the liturgical books and thus would be at variance with the law.

Sneezing is an addition not provided in the liturgical books either. Standing and hand-holding are not either/or positions; they are both/and. I can hold hands while I stand.
I can also hug, kiss, clasp my hands far above my head, make a peace sign, clench my fists, point my fingers towards the priest with arms outstretched, or straight up, pick wax out of my ear, scratch my head, comb my hair, wave, put my hands on my waist (like an outfielder in baseball) and do any number of things while standing, that are not mentioned, either. Quite obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. If these things were spontaneously introduced by the laity during Mass, then the Church has a right to more specifically define what can or can't be done (and folks should be reasonable in interpreting what "standing" means).
Isn't it common sense, anyway that "stand" means standing without implied reference to anything else (though not necessarily precluding gestures)? If one is, for example, told to stand in a courtroom, they wouldn't stand in the orans posture or hold someone's hands while standing, or put their hands on the top of their head. It would never cross their mind. So why would it be different in church?
I can assume the Orans posture while standing.
Not (or so it seems) according to Canon 907 and the high-level Instruction on Collaboration and deductively from the fact that even a deacon cannot do so. The laity can spontaneously do what a deacon cannot do?
Zenit, in a Q & A with Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum, provides the following:

Some readers asked if the U.S. bishops' vote against allowing the "orantes" posture meant that this gesture was forbidden in the United States. The bishops, in deciding not to prescribe or suggest any particular gesture during the Our Father, did not therefore proscribe any particular gesture either.
The bishops' conference decision does limit the possibility of another authority such as a pastor or even a diocesan bishop from prescribing this gesture as obligatory. But it need not constrain an individual from adopting the "orantes" posture nor, in principle, stop a couple or small group from spontaneously holding hands.
While holding hands during the Our Father is very much a novelty in the millenarian history of Catholic liturgy, the "orantes" posture, as one reader from Virginia reminds us, is as old as Christianity, is depicted in the catacombs, has always been preserved in the Eastern rites and was not reserved to the priest until after several centuries in the Latin rite -- and even then not everywhere.
The controversy regarding the use of the "orantes" posture for the Our Father appears to be confined to the English-speaking world. In many other places, it is pacifically accepted as an optional gesture which any member of the community is free to perform if so inclined.

I think this is interesting in light of the other things mentioned above. I'd sincerely like to see how Fr. McNamara harmonizes them.
So the Orans (or orantes) posture is not forbidden; it is a historical posture of the Church, and it is commonly accepted throughout the world.
It was not a common posture during Mass, according to canon lawyer Edward Peters, who observed:

While the orans position as such has a rich tradition in Jewish and even ancient Christian prayer life, there is no precedent for Catholic laity assuming the orans position in Western liturgy for at least a millennium and a half; that point alone cautions against its introduction without careful thought. Moreover — and notwithstanding the fact that few liturgical gestures are univocal per se — lay use of the orans gesture in Mass today, besides injecting gestural disunity in liturgy, could further blur the differences between lay liturgical roles and those of priests just at a time when distinctions between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood are struggling for a healthy articulation.

The previous Zenit article in the series includes the following statement from Fr. McNamara regarding the Orans/Orantes posture:

Despite appearances, this gesture is not, strictly speaking, a case of the laity trying to usurp priestly functions.
The Our Father is the prayer of the entire assembly and not a priestly or presidential prayer. In fact, it is perhaps the only case when the rubrics direct the priest to pray with arms extended in a prayer that he does not say alone or only with other priests. Therefore, in the case of the Our Father, the orantes posture expresses the prayer directed to God by his children.
The U.S. bishops' conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the "American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal" last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes, however, and was dropped from the agenda.
Fr. McNamara adds that this posture is accepted and officially recommended in Italy, with Vatican approval.
As I have said before, I am not in favor of holding hands during the Our Father. I accept the Orans posture but would quite happily do without it. However, given that there are no instructions to the contrary (and the document quoted by Mr. Akin is intended to address a completely different issue), I see no prohibition against it.

Then I look forward to your counter-explanations of what I have reiterated above. Thanks for the discussion.

*****But what this passage does NOT demonstrate is that what Paul taught him was any different in substance from what was in the OT Scriptures, or in the apostolic writings we now have.*****

I did not say that it was.

I agree that you didn’t say that, but I’m looking to the end game. At some point there must be a reason for the attempt to justify the oral tradition as equal to the written, and ultimately it must be to convince folks like me that some of the uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines have roots that go back to the beginning, even though they are not found directly in the text of Scripture.

Transubstantiation is a good example of this. I am aware of the alleged Biblical arguments for some sort of real presence (John 6 et al), and many in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions actually have a concept of real presence. But these are quite unlike transubstantiation. Transubstantiation did not appear historically until, at the earliest, Radbertus, a 9th Century monk. And it did not reach its final form until Aquinas fused it with the Aristotelian notions of accidence and substance, though they were inverted from the sense given by Aristotle. From there it was made official by Trent, complete with an anathema to any who dissented.

Anyway, without getting into all that, the point is, the doctrines that divide us are not simply disputes about specific passages in Scripture. They are disputes about whether certain later doctrinal developments NOT obvious from Scripture should have the power to bind the Christian conscience. To establish that level of authority, the Roman Catholic apologist must first establish these extra-Biblical traditions as having authority equal to Scripture. Then these traditions can become the source of almost any novel doctrine, no matter how alien to the original text.

What Paul had taught him was just as inspired as what had been written.

Actually, this is the point. We absolutely know the written words were theopneustos, God-breathed. Paul’s private conversations with Timothy are never assigned such a character. Paul doubtless spoke true words to Timothy, and he was an apostle and full of the Spirit, but to the best of my knowledge, only the written Scriptures are ever described as God-breathed. Consider the parallel teaching in Peter:

2Pe 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

In this passage Peter, encouraging his flock to remain faithful, reminds them of the certainty of the truth about Jesus, saying yes, we were eyewitnesses of Christ in His transfiguration glory, and even better than that, we have the more sure word of prophecy. And why does he say these written prophecies are such a strong guarantee of truth? Because they didn’t come from the private disclosures of the prophet’s own mind, however truthful and holy was that mind. Rather, they have their certainty because these words were the record of truth intentionally created by the Holy Spirit for use by future generations of believers, like Peter’s flock, and he provided it to them without burying parts of his truth in an undocumented stream of oral tradition that could be manipulated into saying anything.

This was the case for several centuries after the last of Apostles died.

Not really. Not if you accept some of the recent dating for various papyri, in particular the Magdalen Papayrus, a fragment of Matthew (in Greek BTW) which some scholars believe is a mid-First Century product. See article here: http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/FirstCenturyMSS.html

*****Again, the fact that Timothy was in the unique position to have assurance of the truth directly from Paul orally is not a valid justification for claiming the general principle of an oral tradition with parallel authority to Scripture. *****

Why? Is the New Testament not the written record of the oral teachings of Christ and after His ascension the Apostles? If we can extrapolate that this passage now includes the written words we know as the New Testament, why is the future oral tradition not also similarly recognized?

Why accept an argument that doesn't close the loop? We are never told that these private, unrecorded conversations of the apostles are theopneustos, God-breathed records created apart from the Scriptures. I have no problem with oral teaching becoming written teaching and thereby becoming the accepted record of the truths of Christian faith. But we would not even know of these oral teachings had they not been written down. That’s how God chose to preserve them. Again, the objective here is to see how God works. He likes to have these things written down. Certainly there is a time of transition, when the work of creating the text takes place. But once He has given it to us in writing, it seals it as theopneustos, God-breathed, which is only ever applied to Scripture, as far as I am aware.

Actually, that is not what I see in all those *****it is written***** passages. Nearly every single one is used by Jesus as testimony to Him and His mission. He uses Scripture to establish His identity and thus His authority to do and say the things He did..

Well this is really a good idea for a book, though I can’t imagine it’s never been done. It would be wonderful to catalog every conflict Jesus had with the Pharisees and study out how Jesus used the Scriptures to dismantle their oral traditions. Seriously, this was a strong repeating pattern in the ministry of Christ. Here’s just one of the more famous examples:

Mat 12:2-8 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. (3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; (4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? (5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? (6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. (8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Boom Boom Boom. They make a fuss over Jesus’ disciples eating leftovers on the Sabbath and He hits them three times with their ignorance of Scripture, although He could have hit them many more times, for their errors were legion. Yes there was a real prohibition on work, even on preparing food, but not eating. So Christ was already acting within the confines of God’s written law, but He was being utterly dismissive of the oral tradition. And then he goes further and tells them they don’t understand enough about the true meaning of the law to apply it correctly anyway, that God was not the person they thought He was, all based on Scripture. Powerful.

And this sort of thing doesn’t turn up with just using “it is written.” You also have to pick up the “have you not read,” and “what does this mean,” and so forth. It would make a fascinating study.

*****Think of it this way. An old prospector who has actually been to King Solomon’s mines tells a young man, look, the mines are real, I’ve seen them myself. It’s all true. But here’s a diary, written in King Solomon own words, and in it everything you need to know to find the mines and make good use of them. And sonny I mean everything, every map, every trap, every hidden passage, every vein of ore, every piece of equipment and how to use it, it’s all there. I’m old, and when I’m gone, it’ll be up to you. But you can do this, because you have the diary.*****

Sorry, but this example doesn’t work because Scripture does not and cannot record every possible heresy and theological question that has arisen since the death of the Apostles.

You are making my point for me. I have repeatedly said Sola Scriptura does not imply the Bible contains all possible knowledge. What we have contended, and what I have attempted to illustrate with the story of the diary, is that it contains enough information to achieve the desired result. Remember, God is sovereign. He is a genius of the highest possible magnitude. He is perfectly capable of putting together a book that has enough essential information in it about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that for a thousand generations it would serve perfectly as the core of Christian truth.

I have used this illustration elsewhere, but it might be useful to mention it again. Human dna is a finite set of information. It does not contain all possible data on everything. But it contains everything required to make a human. And it even has an error trapping mechanism, to prevent mutation, by having extra copies of genes laying around to replace genes that get damaged. The dna remains always the same, but the human grows, from childhood to maturity, all from the guidance of a tiny little book in every cell of their body. It’s an amazing, brilliant design. Would God be any less brilliant in designing propagation of the message about His redemptive love for us in Christ?

One last thought. I notice you have not responded to the sufficiency argument raised from “artios,” and “exartismenos,” the completeness of preparation that is produced by theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures. Again, not understood to exist in a vacuum, but alive, driven by the sovereign purposes of God the Father, and sufficient, when brought home to the heart by the work of the Holy Spirit, to lead lost souls to salvation by faith in Christ, and to guide them into maturity as believers. Anything beyond what is written, however well intentioned, is optional at best, and to be rejected if it conflicts with what is written. This is the pattern given to us by Christ in His own example, and nothing in the rest of Scripture contradicts it, but only confirms it.

Peace,

*****Transubstantiation did not appear historically*****

It was articulated but the concept existed. Jesus said it was a hard thing to hear. It is also a hard thing to explain. That is why we walk by faith and not by sight.

*****Anyway, without getting into all that, the point is, the doctrines that divide us are not simply disputes about specific passages in Scripture. They are disputes about whether certain later doctrinal developments NOT obvious from Scripture should have the power to bind the Christian conscience. To establish that level of authority, the Roman Catholic apologist must first establish these extra-Biblical traditions as having authority equal to Scripture. Then these traditions can become the source of almost any novel doctrine, no matter how alien to the original text.****

In a way, our disputes are about specific passages in Scripture. These doctrinal developments come from debate over the nature of Jesus, the Good News and Scripture itself. In all these debates, it was the Church who settled the issue. I can’t list all the heresies, they are a matter of record, but when they came, the final authority rested with the Church weighing Tradition and Scripture to proclaim what was True.

Is Jesus God, truly God? The same God as God the Father? Was Jesus human, truly human? Is the Holy Spirit God? Did Jesus truly die? If so, did God die? Did God raise Jesus, or did He raise Himself? Is baptism necessary? Should children/infants be baptized? Do we keep the Sabbath or celebrate the Lord’s Day? Did Jesus bodily rise from the dead? What is the structure of the Church? What sacred writings are actually Scripture? Why these and not others?

We find very different answers to all of these questions. Some are Truth, some are heresy; all with claims to be derived from Scripture. Which are Truth? Which are heresy?

Scripture tells us that there are those who wrest its words to suit themselves, to their own destruction and the destruction of others? In that statement alone, Scripture is telling us that we need to have a sure guide to what the Truth is that Scripture is telling us.

Oral Tradition has been established as equal to Scripture and the matter is settled in the mind of Catholics. The Church, the bulwark and pillar of Truth, has spoken. The Church is not the Truth, but the one who supports, defends and preserves It.

There are no novel doctrines. No doctrines alien to the Truth. There is nothing the Church teaches that contradicts Jesus or the written word. I know that not everyone believes that, but it is what I believe and I have come to that belief through study and prayer and not by being brainwashed or bullied into it.

******2Pe 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. ******

I appreciate what you are trying to say here but I reiterate what I said previously. Here Peter is doing exactly what the Church does. He is teaching here and promising that what he is saying is true. Not because Scripture prophesied Jesus, but because Jesus fulfilled what was prophesied. It again a matter of authority and by whose authority Peter preaches.

*****Not really. Not if you accept some of the recent dating for various papyri, in particular the Magdalen Papayrus, a fragment of Matthew (in Greek BTW) which some scholars believe is a mid-First Century product.*****

It does not negate my point to show that very early on there were writings of the Apostles. We don’t know how early and how much these writings were copied and shared. Also, which were considered Scripture? We know that Peter recognized that some things Paul wrote were scripture, but we don’t know of which ones he was speaking. And, then of course, it all comes back to who determined what was Scripture.

I have to quit here for now but will try to resume tomorrow.

Thank you for the time you took to respond. It is appreciated.

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.