Augustine and the Roman Catholic Mass
Well, I have been decently busy on YouTube with some discussions about the Roman Catholic Mass especially showing that one particular Father did not understand the Mass as it was infallibly defined by the Council of Trent. This is Augustine of Hippo.
I posted my first video as a response to GNRHead’s challenge to Dr. James White about showing “a single church father who didn’t believe in the Eucharist like Catholics do” so I responded with my reading of Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” (Book III, 9) on “signs and the thing signified” and gave some commentary. Here is the video
Needless to say, I had some comments made to my reading of Augustine by a Dan0898 quoting more from Augustine. I didn’t really make much of the comments especially in light of his calling my video a “waste of time”….not really worth responding to Dan. However, I noticed that a member who has recently posted some material by Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis posted a comment asking how I would respond to Dan’s comments to which I responded…
To which Pacislander4life responded :
And then I said,
The funny thing is, I can see how the Reformer’s wanted to go back to Scripture ALONE in regards to doctrine. It’s because the chief interpretive tool for understanding Scripture and doctrine was susceptible to contradictions and differences of opinion and even interpretation. A Roman Catholic quotes the Fathers…the Reformers quote the Fathers….who is right? Well let’s go the Scriptures! What saith the Scriptures???
I have said before that I respect the Fathers for their time and the work they did. I don’t agree with everything that they taught, said, did or practiced, but nonetheless I am not willing to jettison them altogether to Rome. Calvin and Luther were deeply influenced by the Fathers especially Augustine. Personally, I don’t think the Father’s intended to define much of what we use them for and there has been the tendency to dogmatize what they said in passing and read more into it. For instance, in my debate over the Papacy, the second rebuttal statement of my esteemed opponent quotes Fathers who mention such titles as “chair of Peter” and thus, assume the Papacy as defined by Vatican I. But these are not the same!!! What of the relevant text dealt with explicitly, like Matthew 16:18-19?
Well needless to say, these are some discussions going on YouTube that you all can be aware of and keep up with. Still waiting for a debate response from GNRHead….not too hopeful though since I was not to impressed with his “scholarly” response to Nick Norelli’s blog critique of his video on the Papacy…God bless
Moses
I posted my first video as a response to GNRHead’s challenge to Dr. James White about showing “a single church father who didn’t believe in the Eucharist like Catholics do” so I responded with my reading of Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” (Book III, 9) on “signs and the thing signified” and gave some commentary. Here is the video
Needless to say, I had some comments made to my reading of Augustine by a Dan0898 quoting more from Augustine. I didn’t really make much of the comments especially in light of his calling my video a “waste of time”….not really worth responding to Dan. However, I noticed that a member who has recently posted some material by Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis posted a comment asking how I would respond to Dan’s comments to which I responded…
To which Pacislander4life responded :
And then I said,
The funny thing is, I can see how the Reformer’s wanted to go back to Scripture ALONE in regards to doctrine. It’s because the chief interpretive tool for understanding Scripture and doctrine was susceptible to contradictions and differences of opinion and even interpretation. A Roman Catholic quotes the Fathers…the Reformers quote the Fathers….who is right? Well let’s go the Scriptures! What saith the Scriptures???
I have said before that I respect the Fathers for their time and the work they did. I don’t agree with everything that they taught, said, did or practiced, but nonetheless I am not willing to jettison them altogether to Rome. Calvin and Luther were deeply influenced by the Fathers especially Augustine. Personally, I don’t think the Father’s intended to define much of what we use them for and there has been the tendency to dogmatize what they said in passing and read more into it. For instance, in my debate over the Papacy, the second rebuttal statement of my esteemed opponent quotes Fathers who mention such titles as “chair of Peter” and thus, assume the Papacy as defined by Vatican I. But these are not the same!!! What of the relevant text dealt with explicitly, like Matthew 16:18-19?
Well needless to say, these are some discussions going on YouTube that you all can be aware of and keep up with. Still waiting for a debate response from GNRHead….not too hopeful though since I was not to impressed with his “scholarly” response to Nick Norelli’s blog critique of his video on the Papacy…God bless
Moses
posted by prchdaword at 6:15 PM
2 Comments:
Well said... I've asked many RCs about present active participles trōgōn and ho pinōn in John 6:54 and why they reject a 'literal' interpretation at this verse but demand it for all others. Perhaps the best attempt at reonciling this verse I've received is that 'there is always someone somewhere partaking in the Eucharist' But I don't see how this fits contextually.
Keep up the good work... and I still love that song! Arrivederci Roma!
This is great info to know.
Post a Comment
<< Home