Is Holy Water Apostolic??
#11
(04-25-2020, 07:44 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: Thank you for the link.  It seems that it's an idea that just isn't Apostolic as all the info there pointing to Holy Water is way later in history.

I guess 1600 years from now when people insist the Novus Ordo and Dan Schuttee music are the best because it's been around 1600 years, is sort of my point. 

The teaching of the Apostles is the bench mark, Plenty of stuff has been around 1600 years that's not correct.  It seems like a valid question - sorry if it's offensive.

It took several centuries for the Biblical canon to be settled by the Church.  In other words, way later in history than the time of the Apostles.  The Apostles left no table of contents for the Scriptures, no official list or canon.  Some spurious writings were passed off in their name.  Some, like the Apocalypse of Peter, enjoyed some support in the early Church.  For that matter, why trust the Apostles?  In the Gospels, they often appear to misunderstand Jesus, at least at times.  Who says their writings are really all that reliable?  Maybe the teaching of Jesus should be the benchmark.  That's certainly what the liberal scholars at the Jesus Seminar thought, using their bizarre methodology to reconstruct what Jesus "really said and did."  My point with all this isn't meant to offend or attack you, but I just don't understand this "the earlier the better" mentality that seems to lie beneath the idea that we must get back to what was done in the earliest days of the Church, the Apostolic period.  The whole "back to the basics" approach, which seems quite common in both Protestantism and the Church post-Vatican II, strikes me very much as an attempt to reinvent the wheel.  It is unnecessary and doesn't seem to actually produce anything but uncertainty and division.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 2 users Like SeekerofChrist's post:
  • jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#12
(04-26-2020, 03:06 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:
(04-25-2020, 07:44 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: The teaching of the Apostles is the bench mark, Plenty of stuff has been around 1600 years that's not correct.  It seems like a valid question - sorry if it's offensive.

It took several centuries for the Biblical canon to be settled by the Church.  In other words, way later in history than the time of the Apostles.  The Apostles left no table of contents for the Scriptures, no official list or canon.  Some spurious writings were passed off in their name.  Some, like the Apocalypse of Peter, enjoyed some support in the early Church.  For that matter, why trust the Apostles?  In the Gospels, they often appear to misunderstand Jesus, at least at times.  Who says their writings are really all that reliable?  

I think it's hard for Protestants to transition after hearing over and over that the evil Catholic Church "added things to the Bible" etc.

This is a good point though, SoC.  There were over 50 gospels written.  So why do we only read four of them?  Because we accept the authority of the Bishops who debated and discerned over the course of three centuries which books stay in and which ones don't make the cut.  So if you accept the authority of Sacred Scripture, you are accepting the authority of the Church.

Scripture says the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth.  Is Sacred Scripture the base and pillar of truth?  1 Timothy 3:15 says that actually it's the Church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#13
(04-26-2020, 11:21 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I think it's hard for Protestants to transition after hearing over and over that the evil Catholic Church "added things to the Bible" etc.

This is a good point though, SoC.  There were over 50 gospels written.  So why do we only read four of them?  Because we accept the authority of the Bishops who debated and discerned over the course of three centuries which books stay in and which ones don't make the cut.  So if you accept the authority of Sacred Scripture, you are accepting the authority of the Church.

Scripture says the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth.  Is Sacred Scripture the base and pillar of truth?  1 Timothy 3:15 says that actually it's the Church.

I never understood it, even as a Lutheran. The whole "adding things" made no sense when you consider how all of humanity must have been damned after the Apostles, until the great Martin Luther came to save the day.

Talk about a cruel and unjust God, who would just let His Church and Word be corrupted like that and remain so for a millennia.
[-] The following 4 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Eric F, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus, The Tax Collector
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)