NAME: Gabriel Mares
USERNAME: Archangel703
2. Attendance: How many times late? How many classes missed? (be accurate) I was mostly, but never more than 10 mins late due to the time I get off of work and the time it took me to get home then to school. I have perfect attendance otherwise. No absences.
3. To read or not to read, that is the question: Be honest. Have you done all of the required course readings so far? I have not done all the required reading but I’d guesstimate about 70%-80% as of this point.
4. Have you watched the linked videos and films so far? Yes
5. Any extra credit that you like to list? If trying to free a friend from an apocalyptic cult counts as extra-credit I am listing it here =P. Side books that were not assigned that deal with what was discussed or assigned in class that have/am reading alongside the class are
Rapture: The end times error that leaves the bible behind: David B Currie
Mary Magdalene Amy Welborn
An exorcist tells his story: Gabriele Amorth
Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: Gary G Michuta
The Mass of the Early Christians : Mike Aquilana
The Bible and the Quran: Jacques JomierInside Islam: Daniel Ali, Robert Spencer.
9. What are the seven dimensions to religion, according to Ninian Smart, and mentioned in Andrea Diem's book, WHEN SCHOLARS STUDY THESACRED? Ninian Smart Defined religion as an “organism with seven dimensions” meaning that religions is alive and active. The 7 dimensions are 1 Myths (Sacred stories, Historical myths filled with hagiography and symbolism. Purely symbolic myths. 2. Rituals: Activities that are repeated and connect one with the sense of the sacred. 3. Experiences: Religious experiences of the sacred. 4. Doctrines: The philosophy and belief system of the Religion. 5.. Ethics: The Moral code of the religion. 6. Social Aspect: The organizational form of the Religion. 7. Material From: The Sacred objects, items of the religion.
10. Apply those seven dimensions to Buddhism (taking any sect orgroup within that tradition) and describe, in brief, how they are incorporated within Buddhism as a whole Details are key.
Myths: Buddhas birth
Rituals: Yoga, different meditation practices, chants, sayings
Experiences: attaining enlightenment through meditation. Developing mastery over ones mind.
Doctrines: The 4 noble truths, 1.There is suffering, 2. Craving, The cause 3. There is cessation to suffering. There is a way to attain the Cessation of the suffering through the 8th Fold paths.
Ethics: The Eight fold Path, Prajna, Samadhi, Sila,
Social Aspect: Monks, different buddhist schools
Material Forms: Buddhist texts, symbols statues, Temples
11. Apply those seven dimensions to Hinduism (taking any sect orgroup within that tradition) and describe, in brief, how they are incorporated within that indic system. Details are key.
Myths: Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita
Rituals: Bhakti, Karma, Raja, Jnana, Yoga
Experiences: Different type of Yoga, Mantras.
Doctrines: Ahimsa the belief in the respect for all life because the divine permeates everything and everyone, human, animal and all things. Dharma (ethics and duties) Samsara (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth) Karma (cause of action and reaction)
Ethics: Ahimsa (non-violence) respect for all life. Vegetarian.
Social Aspect: Ashramas, divided into 4 stages, Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, Sannyasa. Varnas caste system: brahmins, (priests) Kshatriyas (warriors) Vaishyas (business class) Shudras (servants, slaves)
Material Forms: Temples, statues, idols, Vedas
12. Do you think that there should be more than seven dimensions inexplaining a particular religion? If not, why not. If yes, can youdetail which dimension you would add. Yes, I believe you can add more dimensions to religion. Two that I have thought of can be…
One, Religious experiences of the Diabolical which somewhat falls under the category of “Experiences” but since it is listed as only sacred it can be divided into good/bad experiences. An example of this would be Demonic possession or the feeling of being oppressed by a diabolical entity. This would involve paranormal activities and such that would also include dealings with the 7th dimension “Material forms” in order to prevent or provoke such experiences. Another Dimension would be “The study of Science/History in relation to the religion” This would include of course, the study of the natural sciences/history and how they prove/disprove the religion, how they are in harmony, not in harmony. The possibilities of one approving, or disproving the other. For example verifying the historical information regarding certain stories of the religion. Verifying miracles, or the possibility of them through science. These are just some examples. They are not entirely new dimensions rather sub dimensions but either way all 7 of Smart’s Dimension are intertwined just the same.
13. What was the secret that Faqir Chand realized in Iraq and howdoes it help explain religious experiences and beliefs other thanhis own? You can say that he realized that he didn’t know anything, or realized his own ignorance so to speak. The idea that the “guru” wasn’t doing anything rather it was the people projecting the ideas in their own minds onto the guru’s claiming it was the guru helping them, when all along it was them. They were projecting their beliefs onto the individuals. This can be explained when people “give” or “project” their religious beliefs onto their own prophets, pastors, gods etc..etc. in a way to make them real, when in fact it is the self projection of their own ideas.
14. In the Bhagavad Gita, briefly describe Krishna's advice toArjuna in terms of whether to fight or not to fight. Do you thinkKrishna's advice was wise? Why? Why not?
Krishna's advice to Arjuna is basically a teaching of thinking beyond the now and the human self but rather adhering to a much larger eternal and immortal life. Arjuna is hesitant on the grounds that he does not understand the meaning of what is about to take place. Krishna explains that his lack of will to fight is against and is blocking the Dharma of the Universe (Universal Harmony of things) Krishna does not deny the "flesh, Matter" so to speak rather shows that they are connected and inseperable and are required to maintain harmony. He reveals himself as both divine and material in order to get his point across. The war to be fought was a just war and fits into the ideals of the Harmony of the universe.
Krishna's advice was wise, in the sense that he was teaching the importance of not forsaking the importance of the current situation. He teaches that they are both intertwined with the eternal and required to co-exist in Harmony.
15. Compare and contrast the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshiwith Charan Singh (as mentioned in the Enchanted Land).
16. Why do you think that Sikhism evolved from a non-militaristicreligion into one advocating the bearing of arms? Be sure to back upyour answer. They were threatened and evolved in such a way to defend their religion. Like Christianity which was founded on such messages as "Turn the other Cheek" and "Love your enemy" the Sikhs were forced to defend themselves when threatened
17. In what significant ways is Sikhism different than Jainism? Besure to substantiate your answers. Jainism does not believe in a god, Sikhism does. Jains are vegetarians, while Sikhs are not. Jains are passive non violent and though Sikhs claim to be, violence is acceptable in their religion in a form of defense.
18. How is the Sikh holy book, The Guru Granth Sahib, fundamentallydifferent than other religious scriptures, like the Bible or theKoran? The book was written mostly by the founders of the actual religion. The writers consisted of different faiths into one book of religious scripture. The book is considered the actual guru of the religion and is to be regarded as such by Sikhs. To put it in another understanding it would be as if the next Pope were to be the “Bible itself” or that maybe the next Mormon Prophet is the actual Book of Mormon. This in itself is unique to the Sikh faith, though the protestant notion of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is actually on target in comparison as it is regarded as the sole authority. The difference being that the Guru Granth Sahib was written by people of different faiths. The Bible is composed of Same faith writers, assuming Christianity is the continuation of Judaism.
19. Explain why speaking in tongues is not a unique religiousexperience only bestowed on Christians. How did your teacher relatesuch a phenomenon with sexual experiences? Clue: think neurology andthink cultural variabilities. Trying to speak when in an ecstatic state will yield similar results in people as can be shown in different faiths. The response is correlated to the actions of the reptilian brain stem. The “animal” portion of the human brain so to speak. Professor Lane discussed the reaction of trying to talk during sexual intercourse would be equivalent to trying to speak in an ecstatic state due to the mindset of the individual being in a similar situation in an ecstatic religious experience.
20. Imagine the following scenario: Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna, andGuru Nanak are asked about the religions founded in their name. Ifyou could show them how their religions evolved over time (centuriesafter their death), which specific parts do you think they would NOTrecognize or acknowledge. In other words, which part of theirreligions would they see as CONTRADICTING their original intentions.This is a speculative question, but be sure to ground it with somepertinent quotes/facts/ details.Detail your answer for each of them.
21. What are the common features in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, andSikhism? Be sure to be accurate here. The share similar beliefs regarding Reincarnation (eastern philosophy of the cycle of death and rebirth), Vegetarianism and Karma. According to wikipedia.org it states” All three traditions have notions of karma, dharma, samsara, moksha, and various yogas. Of course, these terms may be perceived differently by different religions. For instance, for a Hindu, dharma is his duty. For a Jain, dharma is his conduct. For a Hindu, dharma is piety. For a Jain, dharma is righteousness.” –wikipedia We see t hat, though the wording may be similar the actual understanding of the word can vary. They each believe in forms of meditation, reciting from sacred texts, singing songs, hymns and reciting prayers.
22. How does Darwinian evolution help explain why religions arose inthe first place? It leads to the primary objective, which is possibly to merely propagate the species. Religions arose probably because the human that was able to believe was able to live longer in different situations. Whether it was hunting in a dangerous scenario, living in a dangerous land. Religion both gave him a sense of fear, and a sense of awe in order to keep him going. Religion develops so that it creates order to keep the species alive longer so it can reproduce. Religion is a powerful Meme to ensure reproduction.
EXTRA CREDIT:
23. Why does Richard Dawkins think that believing in God is a delusion? Based on the evidence provided in science, evolution and the philosophy's of different religions across the world. He believes they can be explained like viruses of the Mind (Memes) The Hypothesis of God is inferior to the scientific theories of Natural selection and Evolution without God. He believes that believing in God is a delusion because the belief of something that isnt factually true and can not be supported by evidence is a "Delusion" He believes the evidence for God is not only lacking but improbable at best.
24. How would the theory of consciousness as a virtual simulatorhelp explain the belief in mysticism? Because the experiences aren’t mystical if it can be shown that it is your brain that is producing the images inside your head and that they are not coming from an outside mystical source. Out of body experiences and near death experiences can be explained by showing that it was the brain all along that was playing a “Movie” in your head just like dreams.
25. What is the most interesting thing you have learned so far in this class? Why? One of the most interesting thing that i have learned in this class was the idea that if God does exist it is possible that he does use our "Human" genetic make up to communicate with us. For example, a Speaking in tongues, ecstatic experience can be traced back to the brain, however there is nothing stopping the possibility that we were designed in such a way to be able to communicate with God. That is of course if we were designed at all. I also enjoy the emphasis on researching and studying for ourselves to find out what "is" and what "isnt" It's important not to swallow everything you are taught, read or learn. There is always another explanation and the same goes for what we are taught by the professor in class as he regularly explains not to "Buy his propaganda" or "Drink his Kool-aid"
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Response: Disproving/ "Bible was wrong"
-"A classic example to illustrate the resilience of religion and its evolutionary nature occurred in the Catholic Church. In the 15 thcentury, most of the Roman Catholic Church still believed that the sun revolved around the earth."
-Quote
My response:
To clarify, this was the prevalent view of the Scientists of the time. It wasn't like the Church believed in a geocentric view and was oppressing a group of valiant non-believing scientist that held a heliocentric view. This is not true. The church funded and was at the forefront of science during this era. For example during these times the Jesuits were known for their highly respected Scientist in Rome.
-"Those who thought otherwise were severely reprimanded, or put in jail, or tortured, or, worst yet,executed."
-Quote
My Response:
This is false. Though the geocentric view was the reigning viewpoint at that time amongst scientist both views existed and you were not reprimanded for holding it. In fact it was freely discussed and studied within the church during Galileo's time and the time preceding him.
"-"At this time, devout Christians felt that their sacredbook, the Bible, indicated that the earth was the center of theuniverse. If astronomers, like Galileo and Copernicus, showedevidence to the contrary it would mean that the Bible was wrong. And,if the Bible were wrong, it would mean that God was wrong. And if Godwas wrong…well, he was no longer God. Such a thought was impossiblein light of the Church's strident orthodoxy. Hence, to question theBible's astronomical version of cosmology was akin to questioningGod's Supreme Authority and Knowledge."
-Quote
My Response:
Again this is a false assumption, and this was not the official teaching of the Church. It is true that it was held by Church clergy and members that this may contradict their particular interpretations of the scripture but in no way would it or did it disprove God or threaten to disprove the Church's understanding. The church issued a disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was supporting an unproven theory and demanding that the entire church bend to his understanding of scripture in order to fit his interpretation. There was simply no way, or no reason the church should have bent to Galileo. At the time, there wasn't even the ability to prove his theory correct. It's actually a good thing that the church didn't rush to embrace his view because it ultimately turned out that his ideas weren't even entirely accurate. He believed the sun was the center of the Universe itself. Current science has proven that Galileo and the opposition were both partially right and wrong. Galileo may have been correct regarding the mobility of the earth but was wrong in the immobility of the sun. His opposition was correct in holding to the mobility of the sun but wrong about the earth. If the Catholic Church just rushed in and accepted Galileo's views. (and there were many in the Catholic church who supported his views) The church would have embraced what current Science has ultimately disproved.
That would have been the real blunder.
"It is little wonder,therefore, that the scientist Bruno burned at the stake. Better for afalse believer to die than to have millions of faithful have theirbelief in God shattered."
-Quote
My Response:
He died as a heretic and this had nothing to do with his scientific views Regarding Copernican thought. By the way Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, and his views were not suppressed by the church in fact he delayed publication of a book regarding his Heliocentric view, not for fear of the church, as it was freely discussed in the church but fear of his scientific colleagues at the time.
-"Five centuries later, however, Pope John-Paul II essentially apologized for the Church's blunder and itsmaltreatment of intellectual pioneers (this same pope acknowledgedthe irrefutable evidence of evolution)."
-Quote
My Response:
The Pope wasn't admitting that the Church was wrong in its official teachings. He was apologizing for the bad treatment of people inhistory by members of the Church. In no way is this the church conceding and or admitting that the church was a separate and opposing force of science. Also In no way did the pope acknowledge and state that the theory of Evolution was "irrefutable" The theory of Evolution is still exactly that. A theory. And it is still debated. The church rejects Darwinian Evolution which outright rejects God, but allows for either Creationism or Theological Evolution. (which is God induced Evolution so to speak).
-"Above is the question of evolution disproving the Bible and ofhistory. Galileo proved that the world was round, not flat and he waskilled for going against the Church."
-Quote
My Response:
The fathers of the Church taught that the Earth was a Sphere 1000 years before Galileo. That's not even counting every other Catholic before Galileo that held that point of view. The Church did not kill Galileo. Nor, was he silenced because of his heliocentric view. He wasn't the only one with that view at that time. It was the way hewent about it as I stated earlier.
-"The Spanish Inquisition and theCrusades are more instances in which historians can be critical ofthe Roman Catholic Church and its abuse of power."
-Quote
My Response:
This is a blanket statement, that requires further clarification to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you areassuming that the crusades and the inquisition were random powertrips by the Catholic Church than this is an inaccurate understanding of history. Though I cannot say more without knowing what specifically you are talking about here.
-"I pondered this question one-day in sixth grade class. Why were there no dinosaurs in the Bible? We know for a fact that dinosaurs existbut there is nothing in the Bible about them. This is because the early writers of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, they had not been discovered in their lifetime, but later. You can't write about what you don't know. It is said that God inspired the early writers of the Bible. You can believe this or not…"
–Quote
My Response:
I've often pondered this myself. I've always speculated where the dinosaurs fit into all of this and if all the theories regarding them are correct or far fetched ideas masquerading as true science. Admittedly, I haven't looked into dinosaurs thoroughly enough to draw some sort of Conclusion, though I watched Jurassic park 1,2, and 3. =P
-"A reader can take the stories literally or not or they can just be read and reserve judgement on whether they believe everything they read or hear."
-Quote
My Response:
This goes for everything we read and hear. We must Investigate thoroughly before making a judgment. Many of the things that were written here were inaccurate about the Catholic church and it all goes back to my other post titled "When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality" Facts are important.
Fundamentalism isn't just a Bible Christian yelling out bible verses and quotes from Chick Publications in order to prove the existence of God and their truth as irrefutable fact. Fundamentalism is just as alive and well in a Secular Atheist quoting Darwinism Evolution theories and quotes from the book " The God delusion" as irrefutable facts.
They are both extreme faith
-Quote
My response:
To clarify, this was the prevalent view of the Scientists of the time. It wasn't like the Church believed in a geocentric view and was oppressing a group of valiant non-believing scientist that held a heliocentric view. This is not true. The church funded and was at the forefront of science during this era. For example during these times the Jesuits were known for their highly respected Scientist in Rome.
-"Those who thought otherwise were severely reprimanded, or put in jail, or tortured, or, worst yet,executed."
-Quote
My Response:
This is false. Though the geocentric view was the reigning viewpoint at that time amongst scientist both views existed and you were not reprimanded for holding it. In fact it was freely discussed and studied within the church during Galileo's time and the time preceding him.
"-"At this time, devout Christians felt that their sacredbook, the Bible, indicated that the earth was the center of theuniverse. If astronomers, like Galileo and Copernicus, showedevidence to the contrary it would mean that the Bible was wrong. And,if the Bible were wrong, it would mean that God was wrong. And if Godwas wrong…well, he was no longer God. Such a thought was impossiblein light of the Church's strident orthodoxy. Hence, to question theBible's astronomical version of cosmology was akin to questioningGod's Supreme Authority and Knowledge."
-Quote
My Response:
Again this is a false assumption, and this was not the official teaching of the Church. It is true that it was held by Church clergy and members that this may contradict their particular interpretations of the scripture but in no way would it or did it disprove God or threaten to disprove the Church's understanding. The church issued a disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was supporting an unproven theory and demanding that the entire church bend to his understanding of scripture in order to fit his interpretation. There was simply no way, or no reason the church should have bent to Galileo. At the time, there wasn't even the ability to prove his theory correct. It's actually a good thing that the church didn't rush to embrace his view because it ultimately turned out that his ideas weren't even entirely accurate. He believed the sun was the center of the Universe itself. Current science has proven that Galileo and the opposition were both partially right and wrong. Galileo may have been correct regarding the mobility of the earth but was wrong in the immobility of the sun. His opposition was correct in holding to the mobility of the sun but wrong about the earth. If the Catholic Church just rushed in and accepted Galileo's views. (and there were many in the Catholic church who supported his views) The church would have embraced what current Science has ultimately disproved.
That would have been the real blunder.
"It is little wonder,therefore, that the scientist Bruno burned at the stake. Better for afalse believer to die than to have millions of faithful have theirbelief in God shattered."
-Quote
My Response:
He died as a heretic and this had nothing to do with his scientific views Regarding Copernican thought. By the way Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, and his views were not suppressed by the church in fact he delayed publication of a book regarding his Heliocentric view, not for fear of the church, as it was freely discussed in the church but fear of his scientific colleagues at the time.
-"Five centuries later, however, Pope John-Paul II essentially apologized for the Church's blunder and itsmaltreatment of intellectual pioneers (this same pope acknowledgedthe irrefutable evidence of evolution)."
-Quote
My Response:
The Pope wasn't admitting that the Church was wrong in its official teachings. He was apologizing for the bad treatment of people inhistory by members of the Church. In no way is this the church conceding and or admitting that the church was a separate and opposing force of science. Also In no way did the pope acknowledge and state that the theory of Evolution was "irrefutable" The theory of Evolution is still exactly that. A theory. And it is still debated. The church rejects Darwinian Evolution which outright rejects God, but allows for either Creationism or Theological Evolution. (which is God induced Evolution so to speak).
-"Above is the question of evolution disproving the Bible and ofhistory. Galileo proved that the world was round, not flat and he waskilled for going against the Church."
-Quote
My Response:
The fathers of the Church taught that the Earth was a Sphere 1000 years before Galileo. That's not even counting every other Catholic before Galileo that held that point of view. The Church did not kill Galileo. Nor, was he silenced because of his heliocentric view. He wasn't the only one with that view at that time. It was the way hewent about it as I stated earlier.
-"The Spanish Inquisition and theCrusades are more instances in which historians can be critical ofthe Roman Catholic Church and its abuse of power."
-Quote
My Response:
This is a blanket statement, that requires further clarification to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you areassuming that the crusades and the inquisition were random powertrips by the Catholic Church than this is an inaccurate understanding of history. Though I cannot say more without knowing what specifically you are talking about here.
-"I pondered this question one-day in sixth grade class. Why were there no dinosaurs in the Bible? We know for a fact that dinosaurs existbut there is nothing in the Bible about them. This is because the early writers of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, they had not been discovered in their lifetime, but later. You can't write about what you don't know. It is said that God inspired the early writers of the Bible. You can believe this or not…"
–Quote
My Response:
I've often pondered this myself. I've always speculated where the dinosaurs fit into all of this and if all the theories regarding them are correct or far fetched ideas masquerading as true science. Admittedly, I haven't looked into dinosaurs thoroughly enough to draw some sort of Conclusion, though I watched Jurassic park 1,2, and 3. =P
-"A reader can take the stories literally or not or they can just be read and reserve judgement on whether they believe everything they read or hear."
-Quote
My Response:
This goes for everything we read and hear. We must Investigate thoroughly before making a judgment. Many of the things that were written here were inaccurate about the Catholic church and it all goes back to my other post titled "When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality" Facts are important.
Fundamentalism isn't just a Bible Christian yelling out bible verses and quotes from Chick Publications in order to prove the existence of God and their truth as irrefutable fact. Fundamentalism is just as alive and well in a Secular Atheist quoting Darwinism Evolution theories and quotes from the book " The God delusion" as irrefutable facts.
They are both extreme faith
Response: All worth it/Read it for yourself
"In World Religions we are called to read the original texts of our own religion even though it usually is unnecessary or not called for. In Catholicism it is not required to read the Bible, but theydo go over it every Sunday a little piece at a time."
Quote
-de_evilgryphon
In Catholicism it is very much required to read the bible. The Catechism of the Catholic church states in Paragraphs 131-133
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure andlasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scriptureought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Church emphasizes that the Scriptures be read and understood in full context especially in light of the Ancient Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Church in order to get a full, complete comprehensible and concise understanding of the Text. If you divorce yourself from the historical interpretation of the scriptures you will most definitely lose the understanding of what certain verses are trying to say. This isn't just for faith reasons, but for a very important historical understanding as well. You will not gain a true understanding of Christianity reading the "bible alone" using an "easy to read" English translation with your modern mind interpreting everything. Though I recommend doing it as part of understanding, you are most likely "not going to walk away a Bible expert."
For example, the point I brought up in Class while professor Lane was explaining Jesus' Reference of "The son of Man" as a humbling and human title. If you read that text with naked eyes you can and will probably gather that's all it may have been. The reality is you would completely miss the fact that the title "The son of Man" is a very special title in reference to King David of the Old Testament and the Jews understood that title as something far from just being a "regular man of sorts". This is crucial in understanding the gospels. This information alone can skew your understanding of the Scriptures. (and it has for many newer Christian Denominations) Another example is when professor Lane quoted the "My God why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34) at first glance you may read only that this was the man Jesus proclaiming that he has been forsaken by God and that even he probably lost faith in his whole mission at this point. However that exact line in its correct context is the exact opposite. It is in fact known as a "Todah" a Hebrew word meaning "Thank offering" or "Thanksgiving" , (Fun Fact: TheGreek "Eucharist" means the same thing). Far from being an act of loss of faith from Jesus, this line was understood to be a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy.
Scott Hahn, an ex-Presbyterian minister now Author, Theologian and Catholic apologist writes in his book "The Lambs Supper"
"Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung dying upon the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salvation. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrated his own confident hope for deliverance" (pg. 33)
And as far as the understanding that every Sunday the Catholic church "goes over the bible a little piece at a time" in no way should that be understood as the Catholic is lacking in scriptural teachings and or readings. In fact it can be easily shown that one single Catholic Mass is "Soaked and drenched" in biblical verses and language. The readings, hymns, responses, are recognizable from verses all over the bible, New and Old testaments. Another interesting fact is that if you attend Mass every Sunday for 3 years,you will have been read pretty much the entire bible cover to cover. And that's only based on the Readings, not the actual language and songs through out the Mass. Many people, even Catholics are unaware that the Liturgy of the Mass is based on the Book of Revelation and is in fact essential to understanding the meaning of the book of Revelation. Most people think it's a weird and crazy "End of the world book" that needs to be demythologized. But for the earliest Christians, the Liturgy of the Mass was based on the Book of Revelation. (otherwise known as Apocalypse or "Unveiling")
Not to long ago in a debate between apologists from the Catholic Church and the non-denominational church of Calvary Chapel, the members from Calvary chapel made the claim that the "Traditions ofthe Catholic Mass weren't begun until 1394 A.D". This claim is certainly strange, foreign and unsupportable. Especially considering the fact that the Mass was essential for early Christians inunderstanding the book of Revelation which was written as early as 68A.D!
Also I would like to add in personal experience, that recently I was attending a "Christian denomination" of sorts that would fellowship literally from 9 a.m to 9 p.m. on Saturdays. They had Three separate 1 hour services throughout the course of the day. Due, to their deeply rooted anti-Catholic views and misunderstandings, they constantly boasted that they studied the bible more in one of their services than the Catholics did at any Mass. However it was noted by me that contrary to what they believed a single Catholic Mass in fact had more biblical references and language than all 3 of their daily services combined. I will close by stating that though nothing I have stated here can solely prove that the Catholic Church is the true religion. What I have stated helps to show that the Catholic Church does require the study and understanding of Scriptures and is deeply rooted in them in worship and teachings. This post Plus my other post I wrote titled "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" helps to show theUnique historical relationship the Catholic church has with the Bible that no other Christian denomination has. This is important to know if we are to understand Christianity to its fullest.
Quote
-de_evilgryphon
In Catholicism it is very much required to read the bible. The Catechism of the Catholic church states in Paragraphs 131-133
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure andlasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scriptureought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Church emphasizes that the Scriptures be read and understood in full context especially in light of the Ancient Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Church in order to get a full, complete comprehensible and concise understanding of the Text. If you divorce yourself from the historical interpretation of the scriptures you will most definitely lose the understanding of what certain verses are trying to say. This isn't just for faith reasons, but for a very important historical understanding as well. You will not gain a true understanding of Christianity reading the "bible alone" using an "easy to read" English translation with your modern mind interpreting everything. Though I recommend doing it as part of understanding, you are most likely "not going to walk away a Bible expert."
For example, the point I brought up in Class while professor Lane was explaining Jesus' Reference of "The son of Man" as a humbling and human title. If you read that text with naked eyes you can and will probably gather that's all it may have been. The reality is you would completely miss the fact that the title "The son of Man" is a very special title in reference to King David of the Old Testament and the Jews understood that title as something far from just being a "regular man of sorts". This is crucial in understanding the gospels. This information alone can skew your understanding of the Scriptures. (and it has for many newer Christian Denominations) Another example is when professor Lane quoted the "My God why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34) at first glance you may read only that this was the man Jesus proclaiming that he has been forsaken by God and that even he probably lost faith in his whole mission at this point. However that exact line in its correct context is the exact opposite. It is in fact known as a "Todah" a Hebrew word meaning "Thank offering" or "Thanksgiving" , (Fun Fact: TheGreek "Eucharist" means the same thing). Far from being an act of loss of faith from Jesus, this line was understood to be a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy.
Scott Hahn, an ex-Presbyterian minister now Author, Theologian and Catholic apologist writes in his book "The Lambs Supper"
"Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung dying upon the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salvation. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrated his own confident hope for deliverance" (pg. 33)
And as far as the understanding that every Sunday the Catholic church "goes over the bible a little piece at a time" in no way should that be understood as the Catholic is lacking in scriptural teachings and or readings. In fact it can be easily shown that one single Catholic Mass is "Soaked and drenched" in biblical verses and language. The readings, hymns, responses, are recognizable from verses all over the bible, New and Old testaments. Another interesting fact is that if you attend Mass every Sunday for 3 years,you will have been read pretty much the entire bible cover to cover. And that's only based on the Readings, not the actual language and songs through out the Mass. Many people, even Catholics are unaware that the Liturgy of the Mass is based on the Book of Revelation and is in fact essential to understanding the meaning of the book of Revelation. Most people think it's a weird and crazy "End of the world book" that needs to be demythologized. But for the earliest Christians, the Liturgy of the Mass was based on the Book of Revelation. (otherwise known as Apocalypse or "Unveiling")
Not to long ago in a debate between apologists from the Catholic Church and the non-denominational church of Calvary Chapel, the members from Calvary chapel made the claim that the "Traditions ofthe Catholic Mass weren't begun until 1394 A.D". This claim is certainly strange, foreign and unsupportable. Especially considering the fact that the Mass was essential for early Christians inunderstanding the book of Revelation which was written as early as 68A.D!
Also I would like to add in personal experience, that recently I was attending a "Christian denomination" of sorts that would fellowship literally from 9 a.m to 9 p.m. on Saturdays. They had Three separate 1 hour services throughout the course of the day. Due, to their deeply rooted anti-Catholic views and misunderstandings, they constantly boasted that they studied the bible more in one of their services than the Catholics did at any Mass. However it was noted by me that contrary to what they believed a single Catholic Mass in fact had more biblical references and language than all 3 of their daily services combined. I will close by stating that though nothing I have stated here can solely prove that the Catholic Church is the true religion. What I have stated helps to show that the Catholic Church does require the study and understanding of Scriptures and is deeply rooted in them in worship and teachings. This post Plus my other post I wrote titled "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" helps to show theUnique historical relationship the Catholic church has with the Bible that no other Christian denomination has. This is important to know if we are to understand Christianity to its fullest.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Why Catholic Bibles are bigger
Ok, I'm going to try and simplify this as much as I can while maintaining all the key facts. In no way does what I write here givean exhaustive report of what I'm going to talk about, but it willgive something solid for you to investigate further if you are interested. In another post I did earlier I had mentioned a time when I was in class and one of my professors (not professor Lane) statedthat Catholics added 7 books to the bible not found in Protestant(non-Catholic Christian) Bibles after the Reformation in the 1500's.I knew this wasn't historically accurate but I never got to share mypoint in that class as I was quickly silenced. But here I will share and try to condense it down as much as possible.
Since the very beginning of Christianity the Christians used two Canons, the Greek and Hebrew Canons. The Greek Canon known as the Septuagint contained 46 books. The seven books in the Old Testamentare referred to by Catholics as "Deuterocanonicals". Protestants refer to them as the "Apocrypha." The seven books in Catholic bibles that Protestants don't have are "Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobit. Catholics still use the same Old Testament canon that has always been used in Christianity. We know factually that the apostles; the early church fathers and all early Christians used the Septuagint until the 1500s. There are roughly 350 quotationsof the Old Testament to be found in the New Testament, and of these 300 are quoted directly from the Greek Septuagint, including Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus. This brings us back to what professor lane explained in our class a couple weeks back. Remember that famous prophecy about Jesus and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say "virgin"but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" Here is an example of the Septuagint clearly being quoted in the New Testament Greek.
And so begins the story of why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testament than Protestants. The Hebrew Canon which contains 39 books was believed to have been drafted by Jewish rabbi's in or around 100 a.d (long after Jesus died) possibly in reaction to the ChristianChurch. One of the main reasons for the Jews omitting the "Apocrypha"books were that they could not find any original translations in Hebrew of the disputed books. Hence, the possibility that this was in reaction to the Christian church because of the fact that the NewTestament was being written in Greek. In 4th century councils the Church affirmed the 46-book canon as the inspired Word of God, Not the 39 Hebrew Canon. Christians accepted and used the Greek Septuagint Canon. They did not accept the 39 book Hebrew canon thatthe Non-Christian Jews that didn't even believe in Jesus created muchlater.
Protestant bibles which only have 39 books in their Old Testament came about in the 1500's when Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation took out the 7 books of the bible. Basicallyhis own reasoning and judgment were enough for doing so, take for example the following statement regarding Luther's feelings on the issue
"I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice" -Martin Luther
It is noteworthy to see here that Martin Luther who also wanted to throw out more books of the bible Esther and even New Testament books such as James and Revelation passes his own personal judgment on a undisputed canonical book along with "2 Maccabees"
Aside from that, they appealed to the same reasoning of the Jews that there were no original Hebrew counterparts for the writings. The interesting fact is that for hundreds of years the Christians had already believed and used the 46 book canon. The writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings refer to the46 book canon. And on top of that supporting information anyone familiar with the findings of the Dead sea scrolls found at Qumran are aware of the fatal blow to the argument against the Disputed books because guess what was found?
Yes, that's right. They found Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books!
So ultimately the 39 book Canon that Protestants use (King james, NIV etc..etc.) is the result of a decision made by
1. Non-Christian Jewsthat did not believe in Jesus, who persecuted the early Christians and who threw out the books long after his death. Logically what authority do Jews that don't believe in Christianity have over Christians to change the Canon of the Old testament by taking outbooks Used by Christian writers, Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers?
2. A Man in the 1500's, Martin Luther who even wanted to throw out more books of the bible (who also added the word "Alone"to his German translation which is not found in the original Greek,in an attempt to give more credibility to his new doctrine, Salvation by Faith alone "Sola Fide" unheard of in Christianity for 1500 yearsbut that's a different issue worth noting though as this is another foundation of Protestantism which began from this man just like thecanon of the bible missing books)
Lets take a look at what history says happened regarding the Canon ofthe bible in the Church prior to Martin Luther's time of the 1500's.The Canon of the Bible had already been affirmed in "Rome in A.D.382, the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D., by the Sixth Council of Carthage in A.D. 419, the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (A.D.787), " You can also add Florence 1442, and Trent 1546 (though Trentpost dates Martin Luther's reformation).
That information plus the Dead Sea scrolls paints us a solid picture of why the Catholic and Non-Catholic bibles differ. We see that the grounds that there were no Hebrew writings for the disputed books ultimately proved this reasoning unsupportable. And it takes no faith, or no Conspiracy theory to prove this point. The finding of the Dead Sea scrolls were basically history reaching its hand farinto the present time and slapping the face of unreasonable and untrue claims that there were no Hebrew writtings of those books. It was in fact the Catholic church, its Catholic Councils, its Catholic bishops, Popes and early church fathers that canonized the Bible that all Christians, Catholics or not would believe in as the Inspired word of God for all the ages to come.
So in the future if you ever hear your professors or anyone say that "Catholics added 7 books to the bible" ask them to show you how? When? where? Who did it and why?
And as a Catholic if you are ever in a position where anon-Catholic Christian is quoting bible verses against you and the Catholic church left and right Proclaiming proudly that they don't need the Church and "The bible is their only foundation!".
Say to them "That is fine but at least understand this. Your Foundation which you claim is that bible, came from the Catholic church… and no, That is not my personal subjective belief that is not my faith. That is just History my friend.
That is just factual History…"
As i said earlier it takes no faith or no conspiracy theory to prove that point. The straight hard facts and evidence already do it. But don't just take my word for it. I will end here with the founding Father of Protestantism to prove the point further. Lets see what the Father of "The bible alone" and "Faith alone" have to say on the subject of Catholics and the bible
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it" -Martin Luther.
To which Catholics respond…
"Amen…"
Since the very beginning of Christianity the Christians used two Canons, the Greek and Hebrew Canons. The Greek Canon known as the Septuagint contained 46 books. The seven books in the Old Testamentare referred to by Catholics as "Deuterocanonicals". Protestants refer to them as the "Apocrypha." The seven books in Catholic bibles that Protestants don't have are "Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobit. Catholics still use the same Old Testament canon that has always been used in Christianity. We know factually that the apostles; the early church fathers and all early Christians used the Septuagint until the 1500s. There are roughly 350 quotationsof the Old Testament to be found in the New Testament, and of these 300 are quoted directly from the Greek Septuagint, including Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus. This brings us back to what professor lane explained in our class a couple weeks back. Remember that famous prophecy about Jesus and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say "virgin"but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" Here is an example of the Septuagint clearly being quoted in the New Testament Greek.
And so begins the story of why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testament than Protestants. The Hebrew Canon which contains 39 books was believed to have been drafted by Jewish rabbi's in or around 100 a.d (long after Jesus died) possibly in reaction to the ChristianChurch. One of the main reasons for the Jews omitting the "Apocrypha"books were that they could not find any original translations in Hebrew of the disputed books. Hence, the possibility that this was in reaction to the Christian church because of the fact that the NewTestament was being written in Greek. In 4th century councils the Church affirmed the 46-book canon as the inspired Word of God, Not the 39 Hebrew Canon. Christians accepted and used the Greek Septuagint Canon. They did not accept the 39 book Hebrew canon thatthe Non-Christian Jews that didn't even believe in Jesus created muchlater.
Protestant bibles which only have 39 books in their Old Testament came about in the 1500's when Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation took out the 7 books of the bible. Basicallyhis own reasoning and judgment were enough for doing so, take for example the following statement regarding Luther's feelings on the issue
"I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice" -Martin Luther
It is noteworthy to see here that Martin Luther who also wanted to throw out more books of the bible Esther and even New Testament books such as James and Revelation passes his own personal judgment on a undisputed canonical book along with "2 Maccabees"
Aside from that, they appealed to the same reasoning of the Jews that there were no original Hebrew counterparts for the writings. The interesting fact is that for hundreds of years the Christians had already believed and used the 46 book canon. The writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings refer to the46 book canon. And on top of that supporting information anyone familiar with the findings of the Dead sea scrolls found at Qumran are aware of the fatal blow to the argument against the Disputed books because guess what was found?
Yes, that's right. They found Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books!
So ultimately the 39 book Canon that Protestants use (King james, NIV etc..etc.) is the result of a decision made by
1. Non-Christian Jewsthat did not believe in Jesus, who persecuted the early Christians and who threw out the books long after his death. Logically what authority do Jews that don't believe in Christianity have over Christians to change the Canon of the Old testament by taking outbooks Used by Christian writers, Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers?
2. A Man in the 1500's, Martin Luther who even wanted to throw out more books of the bible (who also added the word "Alone"to his German translation which is not found in the original Greek,in an attempt to give more credibility to his new doctrine, Salvation by Faith alone "Sola Fide" unheard of in Christianity for 1500 yearsbut that's a different issue worth noting though as this is another foundation of Protestantism which began from this man just like thecanon of the bible missing books)
Lets take a look at what history says happened regarding the Canon ofthe bible in the Church prior to Martin Luther's time of the 1500's.The Canon of the Bible had already been affirmed in "Rome in A.D.382, the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D., by the Sixth Council of Carthage in A.D. 419, the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (A.D.787), " You can also add Florence 1442, and Trent 1546 (though Trentpost dates Martin Luther's reformation).
That information plus the Dead Sea scrolls paints us a solid picture of why the Catholic and Non-Catholic bibles differ. We see that the grounds that there were no Hebrew writings for the disputed books ultimately proved this reasoning unsupportable. And it takes no faith, or no Conspiracy theory to prove this point. The finding of the Dead Sea scrolls were basically history reaching its hand farinto the present time and slapping the face of unreasonable and untrue claims that there were no Hebrew writtings of those books. It was in fact the Catholic church, its Catholic Councils, its Catholic bishops, Popes and early church fathers that canonized the Bible that all Christians, Catholics or not would believe in as the Inspired word of God for all the ages to come.
So in the future if you ever hear your professors or anyone say that "Catholics added 7 books to the bible" ask them to show you how? When? where? Who did it and why?
And as a Catholic if you are ever in a position where anon-Catholic Christian is quoting bible verses against you and the Catholic church left and right Proclaiming proudly that they don't need the Church and "The bible is their only foundation!".
Say to them "That is fine but at least understand this. Your Foundation which you claim is that bible, came from the Catholic church… and no, That is not my personal subjective belief that is not my faith. That is just History my friend.
That is just factual History…"
As i said earlier it takes no faith or no conspiracy theory to prove that point. The straight hard facts and evidence already do it. But don't just take my word for it. I will end here with the founding Father of Protestantism to prove the point further. Lets see what the Father of "The bible alone" and "Faith alone" have to say on the subject of Catholics and the bible
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it" -Martin Luther.
To which Catholics respond…
"Amen…"
Response: When Fundamentalism drowns out reality…
"You make a good point about Catholism and its historical substance. The organization of the church that spread in the Roman Empirebefore 325 AD does point a few rituals that were practiced before 325 AD, such as Baptism and the Eucharist. It wasn't until Aruis of Alexandria created an controversy among Christians that compelled the Roman Emperor to deal with the growing problem, hence forth Catholic "universal"."
-Quote Ironicmyopia
Yes, that was definitely a major heresy that afflicted the church. It took a long time to stamp out Arianism which is the first heresy that completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Also, Its not that a "few"rituals were practiced before 325 A.D it can be shown that "all" Catholic Doctrinal practices were in effect prior to 325 a.d. though not necessarily in the form we see them in exactly today. (By doctrinal im talking about the Doctrines not disciplinary practices such as Celibacy for certain clergy) Through the writings of the early church fathers we see the constant living tradition regarding the church as "Catholic" the teachings regarding the Eucharist, TheMass as a Sacrifice, Confession, Baptism, the Church Hiearchy, Confirmation and so on.
The Term Catholic wasnt coined or developed after the Arian Heresy which began in 318 A.d. (Arius a priest began teaching that Jesus wasnot God) The Church had been known as Catholic long before that time. A Protestant early church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes "As regards `Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal'or 'general" (now my words) Which is part of the understanding that these church fathers viewed the Church as a visible organization separate from Heretics, Gnostics and any other dissidents to the apostolic faith. J.N.D Kelly also confirms this in his writings though the actual material to quote is not in my possession at themoment. The important point being that even honest protestant scholars must acknowledge this historical information.
The following are but a few examples of early church writings regarding "Catholic" the Mass, the Eucharist. This in and of itself doesn't Prove there is a God, it doesn't Prove that Christianity is the Truth, but it does help prove that the early church was none other than Catholic…
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice maybe a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord,and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14[A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the fleshand the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
-Quote Ironicmyopia
Yes, that was definitely a major heresy that afflicted the church. It took a long time to stamp out Arianism which is the first heresy that completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Also, Its not that a "few"rituals were practiced before 325 A.D it can be shown that "all" Catholic Doctrinal practices were in effect prior to 325 a.d. though not necessarily in the form we see them in exactly today. (By doctrinal im talking about the Doctrines not disciplinary practices such as Celibacy for certain clergy) Through the writings of the early church fathers we see the constant living tradition regarding the church as "Catholic" the teachings regarding the Eucharist, TheMass as a Sacrifice, Confession, Baptism, the Church Hiearchy, Confirmation and so on.
The Term Catholic wasnt coined or developed after the Arian Heresy which began in 318 A.d. (Arius a priest began teaching that Jesus wasnot God) The Church had been known as Catholic long before that time. A Protestant early church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes "As regards `Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal'or 'general" (now my words) Which is part of the understanding that these church fathers viewed the Church as a visible organization separate from Heretics, Gnostics and any other dissidents to the apostolic faith. J.N.D Kelly also confirms this in his writings though the actual material to quote is not in my possession at themoment. The important point being that even honest protestant scholars must acknowledge this historical information.
The following are but a few examples of early church writings regarding "Catholic" the Mass, the Eucharist. This in and of itself doesn't Prove there is a God, it doesn't Prove that Christianity is the Truth, but it does help prove that the early church was none other than Catholic…
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice maybe a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord,and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14[A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the fleshand the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)