10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't mean to be offensive, but non-liturgical Protestants have no framework to understand what they are seeing here in this veneration, while no Catholic is confused or thinks this is worship.

---

Hence why I asked...this wasn't a gotcha or something. Trying to understand where this type of thing came from. Does the Apocrypha or other books in the Catholic Bible teach this sort of thing? Church Fathers? I am unaware.

---

All of the above including the scriptures in the smaller, incomplete Protestant OT. More importantly it comes from fulfillment of Judaism in Jesus Christ and comes to us through the Apostolic faith. This type of thing is everywhere throughout Church history and practice…at least in the Appstolic ancient Churches

Zobel said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The evangelical Protestant tradition has eliminated sacrifice (the Eucharist) from worship making it difficult to identify what real worship looks like.

---

I would disagree there. Psalm 51:16-17 describes the true sacrifice that pleases God.

For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

---

Read the rest of the psalm, please.

---

I didn't know we were supposed to continue with whole burnt offerings.

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't mean to be offensive, but non-liturgical Protestants have no framework to understand what they are seeing here in this veneration, while no Catholic is confused or thinks this is worship.

---

Hence why I asked...this wasn't a gotcha or something. Trying to understand where this type of thing came from. Does the Apocrypha or other books in the Catholic Bible teach this sort of thing? Church Fathers? I am unaware.

---

All of the above including the scriptures in the smaller, incomplete Protestant OT. More importantly it comes from fulfillment of Judaism in Jesus Christ and comes to us through the Apostolic faith. This type of thing is everywhere throughout Church history and practice…at least in the Appstolic ancient Churches

---

ancient churches as in what the church in Acts did?

Of course it applies. Certain things have been fulfilled by the work of Christ.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't mean to be offensive, but non-liturgical Protestants have no framework to understand what they are seeing here in this veneration, while no Catholic is confused or thinks this is worship.

---

Hence why I asked...this wasn't a gotcha or something. Trying to understand where this type of thing came from. Does the Apocrypha or other books in the Catholic Bible teach this sort of thing? Church Fathers? I am unaware.

---

All of the above including the scriptures in the smaller, incomplete Protestant OT. More importantly it comes from fulfillment of Judaism in Jesus Christ and comes to us through the Apostolic faith. This type of thing is everywhere throughout Church history and practice…at least in the Appstolic ancient Churches

---

ancient churches as in what the church in Acts did?

---

The guys who believed in things like 2 Kings where touching Elisha's bones brings a dead man back to life. Or how handkerchiefs/aprons that touched Peter were sent out to heal sick people who weren't able to get to Peter.

---

I mean, I see where you're going here and it is somewhat helpful....maybe not the part of putting a crown on a skull. But, I guess.

ok, but now we're no longer talking about scripture. your "certain things" are arbitrary.

on the other hand, rather than fulfill canceling portions of scripture, we can understand that whole psalm quite easily. we recite it every liturgy actually. because we offer a sacrifice every liturgy - fulfilled, not fulfilled = canceled.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't mean to be offensive, but non-liturgical Protestants have no framework to understand what they are seeing here in this veneration, while no Catholic is confused or thinks this is worship.

---

Hence why I asked...this wasn't a gotcha or something. Trying to understand where this type of thing came from. Does the Apocrypha or other books in the Catholic Bible teach this sort of thing? Church Fathers? I am unaware.

---

All of the above including the scriptures in the smaller, incomplete Protestant OT. More importantly it comes from fulfillment of Judaism in Jesus Christ and comes to us through the Apostolic faith. This type of thing is everywhere throughout Church history and practice…at least in the Appstolic ancient Churches

---

ancient churches as in what the church in Acts did?

---

The guys who believed in things like 2 Kings where touching Elisha's bones brings a dead man back to life. Or how handkerchiefs/aprons that touched Peter were sent out to heal sick people who weren't able to get to Peter.

---

I mean, I see where you're going here and it is somewhat helpful....maybe not the part of putting a crown on a skull. But, I guess.

---

For the same reason halos were included in early Christian art. It's symbolism of receiving the "crown of life" or "crown of glory" that is spoken of in the NT

I thought Protestants were the symbolism people

Zobel said:

---

ok, but now we're no longer talking about scripture. your "certain things" are arbitrary.

on the other hand, rather than fulfill canceling portions of scripture, we can understand that whole psalm quite easily. we recite it every liturgy actually. because we offer a sacrifice every liturgy - fulfilled, not fulfilled = canceled.

---

Would your position be that a broken spirit and contrite heart are not enough as it relates to what our sacrifice needs to be as people of God?

ETA...the eucharist is the offering of the people? I don't think I have been able to follow that before, if I have that right.

Thanks, that makes more sense than what was in my head.

I was hoping to get one of the faithful Catholic folks here to listen to a ~5 min clip from this Church History podcast/series I have been going through. The teacher is a Protestant and this clip specifically speaks to Catholic soteriology as it relates to the time of the Reformation and Council of Trent. I'd just like to see if this 5 minute characterization is accurate so I can at least make sure I am understanding rightly. TIA!

Should be from the 40:20 mark up to 45:50
Hopefully the link should bring you right to it.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wD5yYOT6c5WmhFrtjuKiT?si=1emPkn10QJaancvlbN0POA&utm_source=copy-link&pi=jHIpPvnESU25H&t=2419

Quote:

---

I was hoping to get one of the faithful Catholic folks here to listen to a ~5 min clip from this Church History podcast/series I have been going through. The teacher is a Protestant and this clip specifically speaks to Catholic soteriology as it relates to the time of the Reformation and Council of Trent. I'd just like to see if this 5 minute characterization is accurate so I can at least make sure I am understanding rightly. TIA!

Should be from the 40:20 mark up to 45:50
Hopefully the link should bring you right to it.

---

I listened to where the link took me, and I will add this podcast to my Spotify List, along with Battle Ready by Fr. Rehill ( I recommend this to you all!)...

The baptism-sin-confession-penance-grace spin cycle that he doesn't seem to understand is much different than "I am saved and therefore forgiven for all time for any sins which I commit" philosophy, which isn't found in the bible. The concept of confessing your sins to a priest comes from John 20, where Jesus breathes on His apostles, and gives them His authority to forgive sins. St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 that he has been given the ministry of Reconciliation (Confession) for the forgiveness of sins, not holding them against the penitent. So this is the Tradition from the bible that the Catholic Church still has today. If you don't have Sacred Tradition to interpret the Bible, and you just make it up as you go along, then you get folks like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jesse Jackson, etc., putting their own spin on scripture, and coming up with crazy things, which are nothing more than their druthers as to what they think it means, rather than what it means. The SCOTUS has the same problem with the Constituion - they found homosexual marriage in the Constitution, and abortion, neither of which are even mentioned in the Constitution. That is why the Catholic Church still preaches and teaches (except for rogue priests like Fr. Martin and the German Cardinals) what it has taught for 2000 years. We don't make up new stuff as official doctrine. As regards Confession and penance, think of it as taking a bath every time you get dirty. If you don't take a bath when you get dirty, don't expect to be welcomed at work or by your wife - your stink and your appearance become "what you are." Confession removes your odor and your blemishes. If you honestly forget a sin, you are forgiven for it anyway.

The Council of Rome, not the Council of Trent, declared the apocrypha to be scripture in 382 AD, so the podcaster seems unaware of this.

Praise Jesus!

This was a good listen and I do think he is charitable and does a good job of attempting to explain Catholic beliefs from his Protestant perspective. I wouldn't say he gets Catholic teaching right, but I do think he captures the general idea. A few points of correction or clarification:
-
He refers to "mid-evil" Catholicism and the "mid-evil concept of salvation" implying that the beliefs during this time were novel and different than what was believed and taught in the early church. They were not different but remain(ed) the same.
-
He admits that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the de facto Bible used by the church for the previous 1,100 years and that it included the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books.
-
He talks about the role of Tradition and the Catholic view that Tradition is parallel with Scripture and equally authoritative. In my view his characterization misses the mark because he attempts to place the two against each other as if they could be opposed. What he misses is that in the Catholic view Scripture and Tradition are inseparable. The Scriptures are quite literally a product of Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Tradition is the lens through which Scripture can be properly understood. The Magesterium is the rightful interpreter of what the Scriptures mean which is informed by Sacred Tradition. The three work in concert with each other and are never in contradiction.

The Apostolic Church wrote and collected and recognized what is Scripture, and this process was informed by Sacred Tradition. The Scriptures are unique in that are written and therefore the text does not change. However, the meaning of the Scriptures does not share this unique quality but rather is left to its interpreter to remain true. The Magesterium of the Church, informed by her Sacred Traditions, is the proper interpretive authority of Scripture. When the Scriptures are stripped from their divinely appointed place they become subject to being twisted and distorted to the individual's own destruction.

Agree - The bible is a result of sacred Tradition. Without it, the bible wouldn't exist...

Thanks to both of you for taking a listen.

I don't mind listening to good-will protestants discussing the faith. It means we are fulfilling John 17 - "That we all may be one." I do mind listening to "Catholics are all going to hell" protestants, who are talking out of their ***.