I May Have Had a Deep Thought!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mary

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not sure, though...<here's the backstory, so you know how I reached my alleged deep thought> Last night, driving home from work and stuck in traffic, my mind starting wandering. I was thinking about a thread from the board about Biblical texts that support the "L" in TULIP. Several people responded with texts that they feel support Limited Atonement. I wrote down all the passages so I could do some reading. I couldn't get over how many there were listed. (And I'm sure that it's not an exhaustive list.) The more I thought about it, the more upset I got. How on earth can other churches not see it when there are so many Scriptures that support it? I was thinking specifically of the Catholic Church (which is the church I used to belong to). How do they not see it? Then, as I was stuck at a light at St. Clare of Montefalco Church (yet another saint noone would ever have heard of except there's a church named after her) and I started thinking about Mass. And it hit me! Eureka!

The Catholic Church has certain Scriptural texts that they read, based on a calendar system. So, for example, the 3rd Sunday of Advent, every year, the same Scriptures are read. Of course! They are not using the whole Bible! They are ignoring the texts that they don't like, and using the texts that they do to support themselves. Unless you read the Bible independently (and with a critical eye) you may NEVER KNOW about the Scriptures which deal with TULIP. I am referring now to the whole Reformed concept, not just limited atonement. Limited Atonement is just what started my little hamster on her wheel. Up until Vatican II (the sequel), the Catholic Church embraced limited atonement in the Mass. ("The Blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which has been shed for you and for many, so that sins may be forgiven." which got changed to "for you and for all" The sixties have much to answer for.)

OK, reading over my note now, I feel a little subdued. Maybe it wasn't such an amazing conclusion after all. What do you guys'n'gals think? PLEASE don't tell me it's stupid, even if it is...it's OK to say it's not well-thought out, etc. But be gentle - I am very gingerly putting a toe into the ocean of theology. The water's cold & deep, and a big part of me wants to stay on the beach where it's more comfortable...

Mary
 
THe problem is not the Church Calendar or the readings in the Church Calendar.
I guarantee I can find scriptures that apply to LA in those readings.

We follow the Church Calendar at our Church.
 
Wintermute,

Well, shucks. Is it the same church calendar? Because I honestly don't remember ever hearing anything during mass that would make me think about Calvinism...I mean, when I initially decided the CC was full of it, it had nothing to do with anything so concrete as Calvinism. It was other stuff, like the Midnight Mass homily all about the movie "Beauty and the Beast." Calvinism came later, and was a MAJOR shock to my system.

Guess I won't change my name to Jack Handey just yet...

Mary
 
The worst feeling when talking to a Catholic is when you rattle of Scripture and it feels like you're shooting blanks or something. They just refuse to hear it. "You can make the Bible say anything."

It can be so frustrating, I'm a person that gets irritated easily, good thing God's given me a more easy going attitude lately.:cool::cool:
 
Well, I feel like I'm telling tales out of school, but most Catholics don't know much Scripture. That's why they answer that way. I have had more discussions with Catholics (I was one for a looong time) where I questioned this or that about the Church. The basic attitude is, "We're Catholic, so we're automatically going to Heaven. You really don't need to know more than that." (I'm talking in generalizations, understand.) If someone questions worship of Mary, you say, "We don't worship Mary. We ask for her help." If pressed, recite the Scripture where Jesus says "Behold your mother." And etc. etc. for any issue. The "the Bible can say whatever you want" is another of those pat responses. When I questioned HOW we knew Catholics were going to Heaven, that we were the "Elect," I was given the Scripture where Jesus tells Peter, "For thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Peter was the first pope, so that proves the whole argument. (I'll bet Paul Manata could make mincemeat out of that argument!)

On a couple of occasions I have had thoughtful conversations with intelligent Catholics who actually think about these things. In each case, the person admitted fully to me (as a fellow Catholic) that the Church IS full of it (and I don't mean love), but that they are Catholics, their parents are Catholics, their grandparents ... well, you get the idea. So even though they recognize the lies and falsehoods, they will just ignore them in order to keep up tradition.

I buried my head in the sand for a long time, but when I began to realize that I wasn't the only one (by a long shot) who saw that the emporer was in his birthday suit, I couldn't ignore the hypocrisy. Important point, it had to be pointed out to me by fellow Catholics. That's when I really started waking up. "Protestants are out to destroy the Church" so of course THEY would lie...

Mary
 
Mary:
It seems to me that your thoughts were good. In fact to some extent we all seem to box Scripture into our "presuppositions", rather than hear what the Word says in its' own context.

The point, I think, is not so much the "church calandar" as it is that they devote certain texts to certain times and occasions by using the calendar. This may not always be so, but yet the truth is that they do limit the text more than is originally intended, and so do not see the things that are plain to us. We must always be careful not to do the same ourselves.

There are times when I stand in awe of the depth of the traditions and their meanings. And then it all comes crashing down when I see what they have made of them.

Lately I have been studying the early history of the US. The early colonies and settlings. What is interesting is the pressures that were at work at the time, and how they effected later developments. The Scriptures, and how they uderstood them, had a lot to do with everything. A lot of people settled in the colonies just for the sake of religious freedom, even Catholics in Maryland. But they found a new kind of restriction there. The colonies were an experiment in new religious observances, you might say. The Pilgrims, though a minority, were in control of their government, and exercised an early form of tolerance, while still mainataining their basic form of independant protestantism. The Puritans were the strictest, but also formed the most structured form of government, it seems. The Quakers were the most tolerant, but also the least contentful form of government. But each used the Scriptures, and read them in light of their circumstances.

That wasn't wrong in itself. What was wrong with a lot of what happened in the colonies, and the Puritans were no exception it seems, was that the relative new societies of peoples needed to work out their understandings and wisdoms yet, for they had too easily thrown out the baby with the bathwater when they cast off the old religious systems. The Puritans, at least, did not do that as much as the others, and that was why they had such a system as they had. But here we need to differentiate between those in government and those in the church: they were not the same people. But that is why Puritans have received the blame for things that just don't jive with their teachings, as we now see.

So you can see that even protestants can be "fooled" into thinking things to be Scriptural when they are not, just because they have limited the text to their own meanings.

The two things of great note that come out of those early settlements are, first that life was strict and hard, and they may not have made it without those early religious leanings; and second, that there was a sense of community like the world had not seen for a long, long time. So though they were fooled in part, yet their leanings were not final and authoritative in that sense, like it was in the Catholic church. William Bradford may have had his theology, but he wasn't the preacher, or even an elder. The pope, though, and his retinue of clerics, had ruled both church and state for a long time, by subjecting the kings to their commands.

The thoughts you had were, in my view, right on the money. There is an extreme limitation of textual meaning, hidden by traditions as well as by the authority structure. But we, as protestants, so easily do the same thing. The difference is that the Bible's authority is permanent, while our little "isms", even if they hold sway for a little while, are not; the "isms" of the RCC get imprinted into the system permanently. So their calendar has the effect of interpreting Scripture for them, just as you said.

But these are just my thoughts. I'm no expert in either US history or theological history.
 
JohnV wrote,

[quote:7c1d29f0df]
The point, I think, is not so much the "church calandar" as it is that they devote certain texts to certain times and occasions by using the calendar.
[/quote:7c1d29f0df]

Wow, thanks for the response! So, my thought was "semi-deep." Cool. As Pinocchio said, "Someday I'll be a real, live boy." Or in this case, someday I'll be a real, live, Bible-interpreting, doctrine-understanding, able to put together a logical thought Christian.

Mary:lol:
 
Hey Gregg, welcome back! I was beginning to wonder if you were in mourning for all the bouncies Scott had killed.

Mary
 
[quote:695f53f1db][i:695f53f1db]Originally posted by Mary[/i:695f53f1db]
Hey Gregg, welcome back! I was beginning to wonder if you were in mourning for all the bouncies Scott had killed.

Mary [/quote:695f53f1db]

Reply...

Hi Mary. Thank you for the welcome, it is much appreciated.

I mainly miss the little Bouncy (with the bouncing head). I guess it was bothering some people, so it is just as well not to use him anymore.
 
Hey Gregg:
My little ol' geezer is gone too. I had him in my signature line since the beginning almost. I'll miss him as much as your bouncy companion. Just think, we got replaced by a banana: how crude.

But what made these little smilycons what they were was not the bouncies or geezers, but us, who made them what they were. And we're not gone. Not by a long shot, right? Glad you're back, my friend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top