The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

The LIGHT IN THE FOREST

The Meaning of Life ...

The Decline of Controversy ... Part 1

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by Lainey[/i]
[br]This one's for you, Jim.

[b]The Decline of Controversy[/b]

by Bishop Fulton Sheen

Once there were lost islands, but most of them have been found; once there were lost causes, but many of them have been retrieved; but there is one lost art that has not been definitely recovered, and without which no civilization can long survive, and that is the art of controversy. The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue. Prejudice there is in abundance and sentiment too, for these things are born of enthusiasms without the pain of labor. Thinking, on the contrary, is a difficult task; it is the hardest work a man can do--that is perhaps why so few indulge in it. Thought-saving devices have been invented that rival labor-saving devices in their ingenuity. Fine-sounding phrases like "Life is bigger than logic," or "Progress is the spirit of the age," go rattling by us like express-trains, carrying the burden of those who are too lazy to think for themselves.

Not even philosophers argue today; they only explain away. A book full of bad logic, advocating all manner of moral laxity, is not refuted by critics; it is merely called "bold, honest, and fearless." Even those periodicals which pride themselves upon their open-mindedness on all questions are far from practicing the lost art of controversy. Their pages contain no controversies, but only presentations of points of view; these never rise to the level of abstract thought in which argument clashes with argument like steel with steel, but rather they content themselves with the personal reflections of one who has lost his faith, writing against the sanctity of marriage, and of another who has kept his faith, writing in favor of it. Both sides are shooting off fire-crackers, making all the noise of an intellectual warfare and creating the illusion of conflict, but it is only a sham battle in which there are not casualties; there are plenty of explosions, but never an exploded argument.

The causes underlying this decline in the art of controversy are twofold: religious and philosophical. Modern religion has enunciated one great and fundamental dogma that is at the basis of all the other dogmas, and that is, that religion must be freed from dogmas. Creeds and confessions of faith are no longer the fashion; religious leaders have agreed not to disagree and those beliefs for which some of our ancestors would have died they have melted into a spineless Humanism. Like other Pilates they have turned their backs on the uniqueness of truth and have opened their arms wide to all the moods and fancies the hour might dictate. The passing of creeds and dogmas means the passing of controversies. Creeds and dogmas are social; prejudices are private. Believers bump into one another at a thousand different angles, but bigots keep out of one another's way, because prejudice is anti-social. I can imagine an old-fashioned Calvinist who holds that the word "damn" has a tremendous dogmatic significance, coming to intellectual blows with an old-fashioned Methodist who holds that it is only a curse word; but I cannot imagine a controversy if both decide to damn damnation, like our Modernists who no longer believe in Hell.

The second cause, which is philosophical, bases itself on that peculiar American philosophy called "Pragmatism," the aim of which is to prove that all proofs are useless. Hegel, of Germany, rationalized error; James, of America, derationalized truth. As a result, there has sprung up a disturbing indifference to truth, and a tendency to regard the useful as the true, and the impractical as the false. The man who can make up his mind when proofs are presented to him is looked upon as a bigot, and the man who ignores proofs and the search for truth is looked upon as broad-minded and tolerant.

Another evidence of this same disrespect for rational foundations is the general readiness of the mo
[/quote]

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
Lainey	Posted - June 02 2003 : 10:11:57 PM This one's for you, Jim. The Decline of Controversy by Bishop Fulton Sheen Once there were lost islands, but most of them have been found; once there were lost causes, but many of them have been retrieved; but there is one lost art that has not been definitely recovered, and without which no civilization can long survive, and that is the art of controversy. The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue. Prejudice there is in abundance and sentiment too, for these things are born of enthusiasms without the pain of labor. Thinking, on the contrary, is a difficult task; it is the hardest work a man can do--that is perhaps why so few indulge in it. Thought-saving devices have been invented that rival labor-saving devices in their ingenuity. Fine-sounding phrases like "Life is bigger than logic," or "Progress is the spirit of the age," go rattling by us like express-trains, carrying the burden of those who are too lazy to think for themselves. Not even philosophers argue today; they only explain away. A book full of bad logic, advocating all manner of moral laxity, is not refuted by critics; it is merely called "bold, honest, and fearless." Even those periodicals which pride themselves upon their open-mindedness on all questions are far from practicing the lost art of controversy. Their pages contain no controversies, but only presentations of points of view; these never rise to the level of abstract thought in which argument clashes with argument like steel with steel, but rather they content themselves with the personal reflections of one who has lost his faith, writing against the sanctity of marriage, and of another who has kept his faith, writing in favor of it. Both sides are shooting off fire-crackers, making all the noise of an intellectual warfare and creating the illusion of conflict, but it is only a sham battle in which there are not casualties; there are plenty of explosions, but never an exploded argument. The causes underlying this decline in the art of controversy are twofold: religious and philosophical. Modern religion has enunciated one great and fundamental dogma that is at the basis of all the other dogmas, and that is, that religion must be freed from dogmas. Creeds and confessions of faith are no longer the fashion; religious leaders have agreed not to disagree and those beliefs for which some of our ancestors would have died they have melted into a spineless Humanism. Like other Pilates they have turned their backs on the uniqueness of truth and have opened their arms wide to all the moods and fancies the hour might dictate. The passing of creeds and dogmas means the passing of controversies. Creeds and dogmas are social; prejudices are private. Believers bump into one another at a thousand different angles, but bigots keep out of one another's way, because prejudice is anti-social. I can imagine an old-fashioned Calvinist who holds that the word "damn" has a tremendous dogmatic significance, coming to intellectual blows with an old-fashioned Methodist who holds that it is only a curse word; but I cannot imagine a controversy if both decide to damn damnation, like our Modernists who no longer believe in Hell. The second cause, which is philosophical, bases itself on that peculiar American philosophy called "Pragmatism," the aim of which is to prove that all proofs are useless. Hegel, of Germany, rationalized error; James, of America, derationalized truth. As a result, there has sprung up a disturbing indifference to truth, and a tendency to regard the useful as the true, and the impractical as the false. The man who can make up his mind when proofs are presented to him is looked upon as a bigot, and the man who ignores proofs and the search for truth is looked upon as broad-minded and tolerant. Another evidence of this same disrespect for rational foundations is the general readiness of the mo
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
securemann	Posted - July 31 2003 : 4:09:52 PM Lainey? All talked out? Sure,and they serve ice water in Sheol,I mean Hades,wait,I mean Hell.
securemann	Posted - July 31 2003 : 4:03:25 PM We could rightfully say that Hebrews,James,Jude,2Peter,2 and 3 John and Revelation are the Apocrypha for the N.T. because the enlightened Luther said so.Also these books were disputed in the early Church.How come we don't call these books Apocrypha now? People would be upset if we did.Who said they are not Apocrypha anymore? The same authority that said that the Deuteros are Canon.Hold your breath- It was the Roman Catholic Church who said so.Plan history.
Lainey	Posted - July 31 2003 : 02:18:39 AM "Lainey I can understand you misunderstanding my posts. But this borders on blatantly misrepresenting my arguments to make them easier to tear down. I hope that was not the intention." CT, I'm not interested in tearing down anyone's arguments by deceptive means. Especially not within an edifying, stimulating debate such as this. No, it was not the intention & I'm glad you clarified the Jewish/trustworthy statement. Thank you. I'm all 'talked out' for now ... but still look forward to continuing this & related discussions.
CT•Ranger	Posted - July 30 2003 : 6:53:11 PM "Good to have you back in the ring, CT. (Though all those questions still sit unanswered - I hoped I wouldn't have to answer them myself.)" Yes, well work keeps me away from the computer these days. I have very little time to post anymore. Some clarifications. I wrote "This issue is not as simple as you seem to portray it..." because you were only focusing on the Septuagint. I understand now you do not think it is a simple issue. I never asserted that the Apocrypha was not known or quoted by Christ or His Apostles. I wrote that "Christ nor any of the writers of the NT quoted the Apocrypha as the authoritative Word of God." And I certainly never asserted that it was not known by them. I never stated the opinion that the Apocrypha was a 4th/5th century addition. I wrote that it cannot be proven to have been in the septuagint before the 4th/5th century, as that is when the earlist copies in existance are from. Your examples of church fathers quoting the Apocrypha does not prove the Apocrypha was in the Septuagint. As I have shown, it is the opinion of biblical scholars that much of the Apochrypha is from Theodotion, who elaborated on the Septuagint. I did not write that you Lainey equated "Jewish" with "can't be trusted." I wrote that because it is a common argument used by Catholics against Jamnia. I did not mean to imply you thought that. As the "Apocrypha clearly contradicts the inspired Word of God," I will continue to call it the Apocrypha. It is "hidden" from use for theology and spiritual instruction because it is not the holy inspired Word of God. Lainey I can understand you misunderstanding my posts. But this borders on blatantly misrepresenting my arguments to make them easier to tear down. I hope that was not the intention.
Bill R	Posted - July 30 2003 : 4:48:56 PM Yup. I KNEW it. My head hurts!!! moaning and putting down coffee and grabbing bottle of Hornitos tequila. Okay, let me read all these lasts posts and digest them, and I'll try to comprehend it all. Gimme maybe a month to do so.
securemann	Posted - July 30 2003 : 4:01:35 PM The Jewish Council in Jamnia in 90 A.D. has no binding effect on Christianity.At that Council they cursed the name of Christ and rejected any writings that had to do with the N.T.They also rejected the Septuagint O.T.because the Christians were using that version to prove that Christ was the Messiah and was foretold.If anything,any Christian who accepts the decision of that Council must reject Christ and the N.T writings as they did.
Lainey	Posted - July 30 2003 : 12:45:01 AM Good to have you back in the ring, CT. (Though all those questions still sit unanswered - I hoped I wouldn't have to answer them myself.) I'm going to continue through several posts since there are more issues being raised regarding the Deuterocanon before prior issues are answered or settled, & mixing it all up so can only confuse both the facts & the observor. "This issue is not as simple as you seem to portray it Lainey. Not all the Apocryphal additions came from the Septuagint. The writers of the NT did not only use the Septuagint. The early church did not universally accept the Septuagint." Simple? Oh, I never said it was simple. It is factually defendable that the NT contains Deuterocanon references taken from the Greek Septuagint, & it is merely a myth that the Catholic Church deceptively inserted these books at a "later date" to support made-up doctrines. Why is this all important I'm sure an observor might wonder? THAT part IS simple. To justify the 'taking away' & 'adding to' Scripture that marks the King James Bible & its cousins, its defenders must attempt to convince either themselves or others that is was God's word now made pure. How to do it? By attempting to deny the infallible word of God found in the Sacred Scripture of Christendom as contained in the Catholic Bible by claiming the insertion by man of spurious books that are not sacred. If one can assert the Church is deceptive even in matters of faith & morals then one can claim every man his own pope. That's the bottom line. Justification by justification alone. [This frenzied attempt, by the way, has led many a man to convert to Catholicism. What is it they say about being careful what you wish for?] You started by asserting out of hand & with no proof that the Deuterocanon is NOT Sacred Scripture, was not known or quoted by Christ or His Apostles, & the Catholic Church added these works of men to justify her teachings. You persist in mislabeling it with the derogatory "apocrypha" despite adding to your post, "This is a complicated issue and all the evidence must be examined." Well, thanks. You now admit what I have already consistently stated regarding the need for examination of the Septuagint & its Deuterocanonical books. Now you should drop the term 'apocrypha' as it does little to suggest a desire for truth or an open mind. Simple? I have stated I understand why you hold this mythical opinion & I have posted fairly in-depth examinations & references in the pursuit. To say I portray it as simple is to ignore everything I've been presenting. Unless you mean to say, not simple, but convincing? Let's start with this; you began this discussion with an utter denial of the Septuagint having been used or known by Christ or His Apostles. Apparently, along the way you've discovered that to be an error for now you say, "Not all the Apocryphal additions came from the Septuagint. The writers of the NT did not only use the Septuagint." That's one concession. "The early church did not universally accept the Septuagint." That is correct only so far as individual Church Fathers' opinions (a minority), though it was less a rejection & more of a looming question, & until the Canonicity was declared through an infallible, authoritative council of the universal Catholic Church the question remained open. [I'll return to the Church Fathers, specifically the three you stated as having denied the sacredness of the Deuterocanon.] Despite that, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS used the Septuagint but never had used the real apocrypha books. Once defined as canonical, the question was closed. [The Council of Trent, despite assertions that it defined for the first time the canonicity, was dogmatically reiterating what had already been decreed by councils canonical for centuries.] "There is absolutely no evidence at all that the Septuagint of the 1st Century A.D. contained the Apocrypha. There is no clear a
Bill R	Posted - July 29 2003 : 9:44:31 PM Awwwwwwww.............my head's gonna hurt again. Think I'll get a coffee before I tackle this one!
CT•Ranger	Posted - July 29 2003 : 8:35:18 PM This issue is not as simple as you seem to portray it Lainey. Not all the Apocryphal additions came from the Septuagint. The writers of the NT did not only use the Septuagint. The early church did not universally accept the Septuagint. The Jewish(Just because it was Jewish does not mean it can't be trusted) Council of Jamnia did not proclaim a canon, but mearly confirmed what had already been considered canon. No books are mentioned in these discussions at Jamnia except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which had existed beyond memory. At Jamnia it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the Scriptures. The council of Jamnia did not accept the Apocrypha, and the extremely accurate Masoretic text does not contain the Apocrypha. Jamnia was not an anti-Christian council to exclude books Christians favored, as many Catholics suggest. The Apocrypha was written in the period between the last revelation that was given by God to the nation of Israel, around 400 BC, and the birth of the Christ, about 400 years later, a period of silence when there was no vision between God and man. Just as we are in a period of silence today, where no further revelation is to be expected. These books are completely secular and not inspired by God. They are subject to biases, prejudices and mistakes, same as any writing not inspired by God. On the use of the Septuagint, Archer and Chirichigno in their book, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, make the following points about New Testament quotations: 1) in 268 New Testament citations both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are in complete harmony; 2) in 50 citations the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, even though it differs slightly from the Masoretic Text (although not seriously enough to distort the meaning); 3) in 33 citations the New Testament adheres more closely to the Masoretic Text than to the Septuagint; 4) in 22 citations the New Testament adheres closely to the Septuagint even when it deviates somewhat from the Masoretic Text. The New Testament writers, writing in Greek, only made use of Septuagint Greek quotations if those passages properly conveyed the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint was not the only Greek translation of the OT used by the early church. One of these was made by Theodotion. He is the supposed author of one of the two extant Greek versions of the Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal additions to it. Preference for Theodotion goes back to a very early period. Origen gave the Septuagint a place in his Hexapla, but an examination of his writings proves that he almost invariably cites according to Theodotion. Jerome (in his preface to Daniel) records the fact of the rejection of the Septuagint version in Church usage, assigning as the reason therefor that the Septuagint translation is very faulty. Earlier Church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, for instance, had set the precedent; and in Hermas and in Justin clear indications are found of the extensive popularity of Theodotion's version. It is clear that Theodotion did not translate Daniel directly from the Hebrew-Aramaic (Masoretic). For no Aramaic (or Hebrew) original can be assumed for the Apocryphal additions. The Aramaic text is itself an adaptation from the Greek of Theodotion, not the original. Nor are other Aramaic-Hebrew accounts of the Dragon or of Susanna entitled to be considered as originals. The original language of the additions was Greek. Theodotion's version is an elaboration of this Greek original; and his translation of the text of Daniel also is manifestly a working over of a previous Greek rendering. "In order to illustrate the character of Theodotion's work, a comparison of his version of the additions to Daniel with that of the Chigi manuscript is very helpful. In The Song of th
Lainey	Posted - July 29 2003 : 03:37:56 AM "The Hebrew canon which Jesus read from in the synagogues did not contain the Apocrypha." The Hebrew Scriptures (no OT canon had yet been determined) did not contain the 'apocrypha' books (which the Church rejected) but did at times [there was disagreement among them as there was no single authority regarding sacredness or interpretation among the Israelites] contain books of the Deuterocanon (which the Church kept). The Gospel of St. Luke, for instance, is even written in the style of the Septuagint. Read it carefully. The references to Scripture found in the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, & Revelation reflect the Septuagint wording more often than the Palestinian Hebrew. What is the seventh gift of the Holy Spirit according to the Book of Isaiah? If the Septuagint, containing the SEVEN books tossed overboard in the 16th century, was not known or read by Jesus or His Apostles then why is the Septuagint versions of even the protocanon referenced so much in the NT? Here's a list comparing NT references to Septuagint versions vs Hebrew versions I've copied (I cross checked them, they're all lifted from the Greek). Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive. Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway." Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice. Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law. Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed. Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines). Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength." Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases. Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound. Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free. John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven. John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?" John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed. Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke. Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety. Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together." Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went. Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday." Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god. Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away. Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded." Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom." Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Heb
Lainey	Posted - July 26 2003 : 12:17:15 AM Yo! Brother James! So that's where the rascal's gone to! You can keep the book, and yes, they are my sisters. The next time you're in the dark nights of the soul think of this; Hli, Hli, lema sabacqani? Heli, Heli, lema sabacthani? Eli, Eli, lema sabacthani? Bill, thank you for that. I agree this has been (and still is) an edifying, well exchanged debate - very good for the soul! "That's like an Unorthodox Jew calling an Orthodox Jew not Jewish. Ya know?" Exactly right! And that analogy brings to mine another thought. The more I absorb the Catholic faith the more I love Judaism. What a debt we owe to the "light of all the nations"!! The hysteria against Catholics can be found among many - some Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Pentecostal, etc. & in growing numbers among individual "ministries" that seem to erupt like boils of the Bubonic Plague. These are borne of hatred more than anything else - their "missions" are to "expose" the "great whore of Babylon" [Catholic Church] & the anti-christ [the Pope] while "saving" otherwise damned "non-Christian" Catholics from the clutches of Satan by means of corrupted scripture. They like names such as; New Life, Berean, Gospel Light, New Pathway, etc ... Ministries. They're fond of chiding less "faithful" Protestants for ecumenical bents or "soft toleration" of papists. They are a very good argument in favor of knowledge of one's faith as they only gain ground where there is ignorance. They are numerous, though. WW - thank you! The probing/testing isn't a bad thing - that's kind of the point of this thread. I have more comments/questions as time permits. [And I do realize & appreciate it wasn't an easy thing for you to 'bare your soul' - thanks.] CT, the Septuagint questions are valid. The Deuterocanon (and please stop calling it apocrypha - it's not "hidden" because it's inspired Scripture. On the words of Christ & His Apostles, it is so) is an important question you raised. What was the subject of defense in Origen's epistle to Africanus? Who were the seven martyred sons & what was the threefold prayer of their mother? Who said this?; "We concede – as we must – that so much of what they (the Catholic Church) say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
securemann	Posted - July 24 2003 : 3:07:13 PM Hey Lainey,I still have your sister's book on Luther. It went from Georgia to Roma to you to me.If you want it back,just let me know.Georgia and Roma are your sisters,right?
securemann	Posted - July 24 2003 : 3:00:57 PM I gotta say in all honesty that it was Sister Lainey that helped me out and inspired me to pursue the "deeper" portions of the faith at a time when I was falling backwards again into the abyss.This was many years ago when we used to talk face to face and cyberspace was unheard of.But anyway,she still blows my doors off when it comes to theology.Hey,the last time anyone called me Brother James or Jim was at work many years ago.But it had a Yo before it.Yo Brother!
Bill R	Posted - July 24 2003 : 2:08:34 PM Oh. Forgot about the "Irish Problem"! Real rancor - unfortunately even hatred I guess - between Catholics and Prods in the North. But even THERE I was unaware the Prods went so far as to say Catholics AREN'T CHRISTIAN!!! I don't think they go that far even there. So, my question remains?
Bill R	Posted - July 24 2003 : 2:02:41 PM I'm confused now, and must ask the question. What Protestants don't recognize Catholics as Christians? I wasn't aware there were ANY??? That's ridiculous for anyone to say Catholics aren't Christian. I know there are some Fundamentalist sects which malign Catholics, unfortunately, but was totally unaware any Protestants went so far as to deny Catholics as Christian. That's like an Unorthodox Jew calling an Orthodox Jew not Jewish. Ya know? An additional thought: I was wary of this topic, as discussions of religion so OFTEN degenerates into real rancor and finger pointing. I think Lainey, and all who participated, have handled this topic and the related topics so graciously and well it bears mentioning. Each is strong in their convictions and faith, and is willing to discuss it and probe/investigate the beliefs of the others without this thread degenerating into some sectarian brushfire. Well done all. It has been enlightening, enriching, and vastly interesting AND good for our souls!!!
Wilderness Woman	Posted - July 24 2003 : 1:11:20 PM Originally posted by Wilderness Woman: "Communion is highly symbolic. We do not believe that the grape juice or wine becomes the actual blood of Christ, or that the little pieces of cracker we use become the actual flesh of Christ. We know full well that we are only consuming juice and crackers." Originally posted by Lainey: "That is completely truthful. But why do you do this?" Well... to be quite simplistic: because our Lord told us to. Originally posted by Wilderness Woman: "As the elements are being passed out to the congregation I sit in silent prayer thanking God for sending His Son to save me, asking His forgiveness for my sins, and asking His help as I continue with my quest to walk with Jesus. As the congregation takes the “bread” simultaneously, I close my eyes and reflect upon the Last Supper. As the congregation takes the “cup” simultaneously, I close my eyes and think of Jesus’ blood that was shed upon the cross for me. Intensely personal!!" Originally posted by Lainey: "Many [like dissident or lax Catholics] would do well to meditate so reverently before the Lord's Table. A thought for your meditations - what elements were crucified?" The elements...you mean the bread and the wine? Of course, they were not crucified... our Lord was. Originally posted by Lainey: "I ask because the Evangelical communion service is somewhat safeguarded against profane sacrilege even though it isn't Divine; but Sacred Scripture is not safeguarded against profane sacrilege even though it is Divine." But you see... to us, our Evangelical Communion service is just as Divine and Holy as yours is to you. And Sacred Scripture is just as sacred to us as it is to you. I really see no dilemma here. To us, the "Real Presence" is in the fact that whenever we hold Communion, we are doing just that: Communing with our Lord. And as Theresa has said, when we do this in Remembrance of Him, he is very much there with us... a very Real Presence. Originally posted by Lainey: "Securemann (Brother James) & I both have great confidence that we stand on solid ground &, therefore, we put the Church out before this public assize to be tried, probed, tested ... " I really don't feel that anyone or anyone's beliefs or anyone's church is being put out there to be probed and tested. As I have said before in this thread, I honestly feel that all who have posted in this debate are "true" Christians. Originally posted by Lainey: "Not all Protestants recognize Catholics as Christian." Unfortunately, this is true... much to my dismay. Would that I could change it. But I can't. I can only know and profess to how I feel about this. Thanks again, Lainey my friend, for your interest and for your comments.
Theresa	Posted - July 24 2003 : 07:38:41 AM Just a couple of things..."why make an algebraic equation to solve an addition problem?" See...told you my mind was a simple one and can't handle the complex. To some, their Walk is quite simple and for others, it involves more. And...I won't say anything to Rich about this being a place where two or more are "Gathered" in His name. You've reminded me of a wonderful experience I had with a group several years ago in Yakima, Washington. I was on "tour" with our New World Choir, which both of my children were a part. One of the stops was at a retreat camp in Yakima and on the morning before we departed from there to go to our next destination, our pastor took us to a mountaintop (literally) and we had a very moving devotional service and Holy Communion right there! Now, while we don't do this at Table Rock, every single time I've been there, I know that God is there, too....and you don't have to look very far to see Him. It's a special place for me, too.
Lainey	Posted - July 24 2003 : 02:05:07 AM quote: Communion is highly symbolic. We do not believe that the grape juice or wine becomes the actual blood of Christ, or that the little pieces of cracker we use become the actual flesh of Christ. We know full well that we are only consuming juice and crackers. That is completely truthful. But why do you do this? quote: As the elements are being passed out to the congregation I sit in silent prayer thanking God for sending His Son to save me, asking His forgiveness for my sins, and asking His help as I continue with my quest to walk with Jesus. As the congregation takes the “bread” simultaneously, I close my eyes and reflect upon the Last Supper. As the congregation takes the “cup” simultaneously, I close my eyes and think of Jesus’ blood that was shed upon the cross for me. Intensely personal!! Many [like dissident or lax Catholics] would do well to meditate so reverently before the Lord's Table. A thought for your meditations - what elements were crucified? quote: “Do Evangelicals elevate the communion service over and above scripture?” I don’t believe so. Scripture is the Divine Word of God, our set of rules to live by, if you will. It is to be believed and followed. And so we take Communion, as Jesus taught us to do by His example at the Last Supper, as put down in Scripture... and as you do in the Catholic Church. I ask because the Evangelical communion service is somewhat safeguarded against profane sacrilege even though it isn't Divine; but Sacred Scripture is not safeguarded against profane sacrilege even though it is Divine. Do you see my point? This is vexing. I see a twofold, contradicting dilemma. Theresa, in her wonderful, inspired profession of faith in the Real Presence has a dilemma. You, in your own beautifully contemplative, prayerful profession of faith in the Cross but not in the Real Presence have a dilemma. Theresa for believing in the Flesh & Blood, & you for not believing in the Flesh & Blood; both are correct even though they contradict each other. (The wonderful paradox that is Christianity ...) quote: ...can we safely say this a place where two or more are gathered in His name? Yes, just don't tell Rich. He's against all non-Mohican gatherings, thinking there's only one, true way to Mt. Table Top. quote: Is contemplation of the Eucharist Mysteries something God is calling me to? Quite possibly, Elaine. I believe we should never quit searching when the opportunity comes along to learn something....and I do think that we are all teachers, in a way, and can certainly learn from each other. You know, it's kinda like being able to solve a math problem in more than one way but yet the answer is the same. That may be a poor analogy but my mind sometimes understands explanation in that way. Very good analogy. And I would add; why make an algebraic equation just to solve a simple addition problem? Questions & challenges help each one of us to define & declare what it is we hold true. In the same way, the Church has dogmati
Lainey	Posted - July 23 2003 : 11:55:53 PM "How can he who calls Scripture 'God-inspired,' because it was written through the inspiration of the Spirit, use the language of one who insults and belittles Him?" St. Basil/On the Spirit What council of men defined the OT canon the Protestant Fathers adopted nearly 1500 years after Christ's public ministry? On what authority did this council of men close the books, if indeed it can be said it was closed? Is the Book of Revelations (Apocalypse) inspired Scripture? Does NT referencing an OT Book prove its canonicity, or does NT omission of it disprove its canonicity? Does Christ or His Apostles quote from any of the following OT books; Josue (Joshua), Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings (2 Samuel), 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles), 2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles), 1 Esdras (Ezra), 2 Esdras(Nehemiah), Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles of Canticles (Song of Solomon), Lamentations, (Abdias) Obadiah, Nahum, or (Sophonias) Zephaniah? "The Hebrew canon which Jesus read from in the synagogues did not contain the Apocrypha." Which Hebrew canon existed at this time? How do you know its contents?
securemann	Posted - July 23 2003 : 4:09:41 PM Here's the problem in a nut shell:"It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins".2 Maccabees 12:46 -a reference to purgatory.Luther saw this and tossed it out! It didn't square with his theology.This book was always considered in the canon for well over 1000 years until Father Luther said it is not so.
Wilderness Woman	Posted - July 23 2003 : 11:09:46 AM quote: Originally posted by Lainey Can I comment or question further (in good faith)? Of course you may! But I may not have the answer...
Lainey	Posted - July 23 2003 : 11:00:05 AM WW, thank you for that! Don't apologize for stating what you believe - I know it's not meant to undermine anything. If I thought your views would mirror my own I think I'd be calling you Catholic. "Yes, I suppose some call it arrogant and offensive. But, some say the same about the Catholic Church… which, if I understand it correctly, does not allow children who haven’t gone through Catechism, or non-Catholics to participate in Holy Communion." So you know - I do NOT think it is arrogant or offensive to restrict or prohibit participation in religious rites to only those who adhere in good faith & in the spirit of truth to the religion, its doctrines, its rites, etc. I was noting that some Evangelicals (and many others) claim to be "offended" by "arrogant" Catholic prohibition or exclusion even though they also exclude & prohibit (as they should). Your understanding of Catholic prohibition is correct; a child (or adult) must first be baptized & catechized, cleansed so they might approach the Body of Christ "worthily" as it is written in Scripture. Can I comment or question further (in good faith)?
securemann	Posted - July 23 2003 : 10:55:56 AM Your are wrong on this one CT.The Council of Rome in 382A.D.under the leadership of Pope Damasus declared the Canon of Scripture which included ALL the deuterocanonical books.He ordered ST.Jerome to make the translation which became the Latin Vulgate and was the only offical Bible for Christian usage from 400A.D-till the revolt.The Council of Trent was reacting to the revolters who wanted to throw out the deuteros.The deuteros was always considered canon.It is true that Jerome did not agree about the deuteros but he submitted to the Pope who has the last word and Jerome placed them in the Latin Vulgate.
Lainey	Posted - July 23 2003 : 10:42:47 AM CT, I can fully appreciate why you hold this view. I can. Nonetheless, you are in error. The only way I can make you see what is NOT apocrypha before God, was NOT apocrypha before Christ & His Apostles, was NOT apocrypha before the majority of Jews of the era (and prior to the Jewish Council of Javneh A.D. 90), & was NOT apocrypha before the Church (EVER) is to dismantle your misperception of inspired Scripture & hold out the Greek Septuagint for your examination. In doing this, do you promise to examine this in "good faith" & in "spirit of truth"? Will you, if it is proven to you that the Greek Septuagint was recognized as inspired Scripture by Christ & His Apostles admit it freely & denounce Luther's tampering of Sacred Scripture (yet another "rotten fruit" of a "bad tree") & "throw overboard" this pottage of fallacies? All in the spirit of truth? The same Scripture I quoted to you on the Eucharist applies here. "And Jesus answered and said to them, 'Is not this why you err - because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. But as to the dead rising, have you not read in the book of Moses about the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore entirely wrong." How many OT books were recognized as inspired Scripture by the Sadducees? How many OT books were recognized as inspired Scripture by the Pharisees? Which books contain accounts of the Feast of Hanukkah? On what occasion did Christ say?; "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Who did He reference as being "set apart" as a prophetic image of Himself? Who said this?: "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us." Do you hold the opinions of individual Church Fathers to be infallible? We Catholics do not.
CT•Ranger	Posted - July 23 2003 : 01:22:17 AM quote: Deuterocanonical Scripture, CT, was previously called "baggage" by you. Are you aware that these books were quoted by Christ Himself? Was Christ quoting baggage? Have you any grasp of the OT books - the differing books of various Jewish sects? Do you know that 2 out of every 3 scriptural references spoken by Christ were references to the Septuagint which contained the Deuterocanonical books? Be careful ... an account for every word spoken will be given. Lainy, this is simply not true. "Are you aware that these books were quoted by Christ Himself? Was Christ quoting baggage?" Christ nor any of the writers of the NT quoted the Apocrypha as the authoritative Word of God. "Do you know that 2 out of every 3 scriptural references spoken by Christ were references to the Septuagint which contained the Deuterocanonical books?" There is absolutely no evidence at all that the Septuagint of the 1st Century A.D. contained the Apocrypha. There is no clear answer as to what the first century A.D. Septuagint contained. The fourth or fifth century A.D. Greek manuscripts, in which the Apocrypha appears, have no consistency with the number of books or their order. The Hebrew canon which Jesus read from in the synagogues did not contain the Apocrypha. The New Testament writers may allude to the Apocrypha, but they never quoted from it as the Word of God or gave the slightest hint that any of the books are inspired. The Apocrypha clearly contradicts the inspired Word of God. If the Septuagint in the first century A.D. contained these books, which is by no means a proven fact, Jesus and His disciples completely ignored them. Origen, Athanasius and Jerome denied the canonicity of these books. Jerome refused to include the Apocrypha in his translation of the OT. It cannot be overemphasized that the Rome itself did not officially declare these books deuterocanonical until the Council of Trent. The acceptance of certain books in the Apocrypha as deuterocanonical by Rome was to a great extent a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. By accepting these books, Rome legitimized their reference to them in doctrinal matters.

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.29 seconds