Another Priest Bites the Dust

[bamacheats]

Do you think Catholics are just reading these texts for ****s and giggles during Mass?

That's exactly what I think. Mass is an unscriptural practice. Reading scripture during an unscriptural practice leans more in the direction of hypocrisy than worship.

Keep trying to save face, though. Scripture is absolutely involved in Catholic worship.

No face to save. Catholics use of scripture is nothing more than window dressing. Obviously your definition of "involved" is synonymous with "used". My definition of "involved" is synonymous with "applied".

 

[rjd970]

Lots of butt hurt going on in here.

 

[therealUT]

That's exactly what I think. Mass is an unscriptural practice. Reading scripture during an unscriptural practice leans more in the direction of hypocrisy than worship.

No face to save. Catholics use of scripture is nothing more than window dressing. Obviously your definition of "involved" is synonymous with "used". My definition of "involved" is synonymous with "applied".

So, the Catholic Church compiled scripture into one of their canonical texts and preserved it as mere window dressing so that 1,200 years later Protestants could "worship" (in whatever perverse fashion you are using the word) with scripture. This makes complete sense.

I also fail to see how Mass is an "unscriptual practice". Certainly, the central and highest part of the Mass involves the scripture passage, "Do this in memory of me"; however, don't let that fact sidetrack your worthless argument.

 

[Gramps]

Lots of butt hurt going on in here.

That does appear to be the case. This thread has blown up somewhat today. I have been busy and missed all the fun.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Lol, you're so Christlike. I bet Jesus can't wait to talk 401k's with you in the Heavenly Homeowner's Association meetings.

Why would I want to talk about earthly possessions when I would have shed those possessions in order to pass throught the eye of the needle?

 

[PKT_VOL]

The VN bible scholars need to tell the pope he doesnt know what he is talking about

God's love stronger than the attraction of wealth, Pope says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Citing the Gospel reading, the Pope noted Christ’s warning: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

This statement shocked Christ’s disciples, the Pope noted, reminding the assembly in St. Peter’s Square of Christ’s follow-up: “This is impossible for men but not for God; everything is possible with God.”

Sorry I just took you to bible school. Let me know if you need help with your IRA, I'm pretty good with those too

When it says that it is impossible for man, it is not talking about impossible for man to live modestly (and give his/her excess to those without). It (everything is possible with God) is talking about getting a camel through the eye of needle.

You certainly didn't take anybody to school.

 

[bamacheats]

So, the Catholic Church compiled scripture into one of their canonical texts and preserved it as mere window dressing so that 1,200 years later Protestants could "worship" (in whatever perverse fashion you are using the word) with scripture. This makes complete sense.

I also fail to see how Mass is an "unscriptual practice". Certainly, the central and highest part of the Mass involves the scripture passage, "Do this in memory of me"; however, don't let that fact sidetrack your worthless argument.

Catholic Church has a rich history of attempts at keeping scripture from the common man. Even shedding blood for this purpose.

Mass is the attempt to apply Luke 22:19. My view of mass being unscriptural refers specifically to transubstantiation.

 

[Bezdomny]

Mass is unscriptural tradition. Adding scripture to an unscriptural practice does not validate it.

My primary point is, walk into a non-mega church Baptist service for example, everyone is reading scripture and making application because scripture is the authority.

Catholics do not view scripture as the authority. Reading some verses is more tradition than worship.

Perhaps the availability of bibles during the formative periods of the denominations explains in part the differences in bible use of the two services. The Catholic church was founded 1000+ years before Gutenberg's press; the Baptist church 150 or so years after Gutenberg.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Why would I want to talk about earthly possessions when I would have shed those possessions in order to pass throught the eye of the needle?

Well, if we're getting down to brass tacks, you apparently wouldn't shed those possessions.

My guess is that Jesus would think you're kind of a douchebag.

 

[therealUT]

Catholic Church has a rich history of attempts at keeping scripture from the common man. Even shedding blood for this purpose.

Mass is the attempt to apply Luke 22:19. My view of mass being unscriptural refers specifically to transubstantiation.

So, your view of Mass being unscriptual is that you interpret the bible differently from the Catholic Church. And, upon this, you are also stating the the Catholic Church is guilty of hypocrisy.

1. You either do not know the meaning of hypocrisy, which, like lying involves knowingly deceiving, hypocrisy involves knowingly assuming a facade or false pretense to look virtuous. Therefore, you are simply stating that the Catholic Church has the "wrong interpretation" and is therefore acting hypocritically.

2. You do know the meaning of hypocrisy and you think the interpretations of the scripture are not good-faith interpretations. However, if the Church knew they were not good-faith interpretations, then why select them and preserve them as one of their canonical texts? Such a thought is absurd.

Last, the Catholic Church does not have a brutal history of keeping scripture from the common man. Prior to Gutenberg, books were copied by hand. Monks spent entire lifetimes doing nothing but copying scripture. This was incredibly laborious. Further, binding was incredibly expensive, as well. Thus, finished products were few and went to the wealthy (who, surprise surprise, were also some of the few who knew how to read). Medieval Catholic Cathedrals had three altars, a main altar and two side altars. At the main altar, everything went on in Latin. At the side altars, the Mass took place in the vernacular and the homilies were used to instruct the common man in the scripture; funny way of keeping scripture from the common man, right? Read it to him in a language he can understand...

The Catholic Church certainly fought against mass reproduction of vernacular translations of the bible not because the Church was hell-bent on keeping the bible from the common man, but because the Church did not have oversight on the translators. Thus, the Church fought to keep poor or interested translations from the common man. The Catholic Church, however, had vernacular translations of the bible as early as the fourth century (moving from Greek to Latin is moving to a vernacular translation). The Church had translations in French and German before the eleventh century; and, seeing that the English were speaking French, German, and Anglo-Saxon in the middle ages, these vernacular translations often sufficed so that Priests could preach in the vernacular to their congregations in England.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

When it says that it is impossible for man, it is not talking about impossible for man to live modestly (and give his/her excess to those without). It (everything is possible with God) is talking about getting a camel through the eye of needle.

You certainly didn't take anybody to school.

Huh? The passage is about shedding earthly possessions to get into heaven. Not literally threading a needle with a camel. But thanks guys for the lol

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Well, if we're getting down to brass tacks, you apparently wouldn't shed those possessions.

My guess is that Jesus would think you're kind of a douchebag.

Lol. I'm very prepared and I doubt Jesus thinks that since he created me

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Lol. I'm very prepared and I doubt Jesus thinks that since he created me

Who created Paris Hilton? Tom Sizemore? John Edwards? Bill Maher?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Huh? The passage is about shedding earthly possessions to get into heaven. Not literally threading a needle with a camel. But thanks guys for the lol

Good god, you're just slow.

 

[hog88]

Lots of butt hurt going on in here.

No kidding, if Catholic and Protestant are bickering and butt hurt over the same religion how in the hell do you think we'll ever get along with Muslims????

 

[bamacheats]

So, your view of Mass being unscriptual is that you interpret the bible differently from the Catholic Church. And, upon this, you are also stating the the Catholic Church is guilty of hypocrisy.

1. You either do not know the meaning of hypocrisy, which, like lying involves knowingly deceiving, hypocrisy involves knowingly assuming a facade or false pretense to look virtuous. Therefore, you are simply stating that the Catholic Church has the "wrong interpretation" and is therefore acting hypocritically.

2. You do know the meaning of hypocrisy and you think the interpretations of the scripture are not good-faith interpretations. However, if the Church knew they were not good-faith interpretations, then why select them and preserve them as one of their canonical texts? Such a thought is absurd.

Last, the Catholic Church does not have a brutal history of keeping scripture from the common man. Prior to Gutenberg, books were copied by hand. Monks spent entire lifetimes doing nothing but copying scripture. This was incredibly laborious. Further, binding was incredibly expensive, as well. Thus, finished products were few and went to the wealthy (who, surprise surprise, were also some of the few who knew how to read). Medieval Catholic Cathedrals had three altars, a main altar and two side altars. At the main altar, everything went on in Latin. At the side altars, the Mass took place in the vernacular and the homilies were used to instruct the common man in the scripture; funny way of keeping scripture from the common man, right? Read it to him in a language he can understand...

The Catholic Church certainly fought against mass reproduction of vernacular translations of the bible not because the Church was hell-bent on keeping the bible from the common man, but because the Church did not have oversight on the translators. Thus, the Church fought to keep poor or interested translations from the common man. The Catholic Church, however, had vernacular translations of the bible as early as the fourth century (moving from Greek to Latin is moving to a vernacular translation). The Church had translations in French and German before the eleventh century; and, seeing that the English were speaking French, German, and Anglo-Saxon in the middle ages, these vernacular translations often sufficed so that Priests could preach in the vernacular to their congregations in England.

Obviously history is open to interpretation.

Scripture was intentionally withheld from the common man. Who authorized the Catholic Church to qualify translators?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Good god, you're just slow.

His post makes zero sense can you decipher it for me

 

[therealUT]

Obviously history is open to interpretation.

Scripture was intentionally withheld from the common man. Who authorized the Catholic Church to qualify translators?

Again, funny way to withhold a text from the (illiterate) common man by reading to him from that text, in his language, every Sunday.

I am sure that because the Monarchies in England and France were not teaching the common man to read, yet were ensuring that edicts were officially pronounced in public areas, they were trying to keep the common man from knowing the law...

Why does it matter who authorized the Catholic Church to qualify translators? Until at least half a century past the beginning of the reformation, every university in Europe was run by the Catholic Church. There were hardly any "qualified translators" that the Catholic Church had not trained. So, the Catholic Church chose translators who were frequently already monks and priests in Europe to render the translations as faithfully as possible to the Latin, which was, in the eyes of the Church, as faithful as possible a rendering of the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin.

Your criticism is absurd, as it is based in the notion that the Catholic Church has both tried to keep scripture from the common man and that it has decided not to render faithful translations from a text that it self-selected as part of its canon.

If the Church did not want those texts, then why in the **** did they select to keep and preserve them? The thought is asinine, and you are a fool for persevering down this path.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

His post makes zero sense can you decipher it for me

It's easily deciphered, since it's what I've been telling you for 3 pages.

However, your limited understanding makes it difficult to decipher it FOR YOU.

 

[bamacheats]

Again, funny way to withhold a text from the (illiterate) common man by reading to him from that text, in his language, every Sunday.

I am sure that because the Monarchies in England and France were not teaching the common man to read, yet were ensuring that edicts were officially pronounced in public areas, they were trying to keep the common man from knowing the law...

Why does it matter who authorized the Catholic Church to qualify translators? Until at least half a century past the beginning of the reformation, every university in Europe was run by the Catholic Church. There were hardly any "qualified translators" that the Catholic Church had not trained. So, the Catholic Church chose translators who were frequently already monks and priests in Europe to render the translations as faithfully as possible to the Latin, which was, in the eyes of the Church, as faithful as possible a rendering of the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin.

Your criticism is absurd, as it is based in the notion that the Catholic Church has both tried to keep scripture from the common man and that it has decided not to render faithful translations from a text that it self-selected as part of its canon.

If the Church did not want those texts, then why in the **** did they select to keep and preserve them? The thought is asinine, and you are a fool for persevering down this path.

I thought your philosophical view was basically a "to each his own" as long as its not infringing on the freedoms of others? No so with the Catholic church? You seem to have conflicting standards, and yet I'm absurd?

Or maybe I just misjudged your over all outlook. If so, my apologies.

 

[therealUT]

I thought your philosophical view was basically a "to each his own" as long as its not infringing on the freedoms of others? No so with the Catholic church? You seem to have conflicting standards, and yet I'm absurd?

Or maybe I just misjudged your over all outlook. If so, my apologies.

I am not Catholic (I am not Christian; I am a deist); that does not mean that I will not point out absurd and unfounded criticisms against the Catholic Church.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Huh? The passage is about shedding earthly possessions to get into heaven. Not literally threading a needle with a camel. But thanks guys for the lol

The first part, yes.

You seem to think rich men are in favor with Jesus or will have no problem getting into heaven.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Good god, you're just slow.

Pretty sad, really.

 

[bamacheats]

I am not Catholic (I am not Christian; I am a deist); that does not mean that I will not point out absurd and unfounded criticisms against the Catholic Church.

These "absurd and unfounded criticisms" are in complete harmony with your philosophical views, but you cast aside your own personal beliefs to defend your view of the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church has murdered people for unlawful (to them) ownership of holy writings.

Oh, but the clergy read it to them! Well isn't that convenient! Funny thing though, when a large populace could read it for themselves there was a great Protestant movement. That's absurd though! Purely circumstantial! Completely unfounded!

 

[therealUT]

These "absurd and unfounded criticisms" are in complete harmony with your philosophical views, but you cast aside your own personal beliefs to defend your view of the Catholic Church?

Negative. Criticism of the Catholic Church harmonizes with my philosophical views; your specific criticisms, being baseless and absurd, do not.

The Catholic Church has murdered people for unlawful (to them) ownership of holy writings.

Correct. I have addressed this point. The Catholic Church wanted to maintain control over the translations to ensure that what was being translated was consistent with how they thought the text ought to be translated. The Church of England did the same thing; as did the Lutherans; as did the Calvinists.

Oh, but the clergy read it to them! Well isn't that convenient! Funny thing though, when a large populace could read it for themselves there was a great Protestant movement. That's absurd though! Purely circumstantial! Completely unfounded!

The vast majority of the populace could not read when the Reformation began. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, Europe was still largely (and by largely, I am speaking over over three-quarters of the population) illiterate. Reformers were reading scripture to their congregations just as the Catholic Church was reading scripture to their congregations. One significant difference was that for the first century in which the Gutenberg Press was around, the illiterate could hold and have a book that they could not read.