barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (08/30/90)
In-reply-to: press2@cbnewsd.UUCP's message of Thu, 23-Aug-90 23:31:40 EDT Joe Buehler writes: >Priests' power of consecration is why Catholics traditionally have >such reverence for them. They are given something that neither angels >nor the saints (even Mary) have been given -- a certain kind of power >over God. I have a very difficult time equating this with the Gospel once delivered to the saints, i.e., the NT Bible, Gasp-) I figure you can pull this up from some tradition. The problem with hundreds of years of tradition is as you've heard plenty of times before, but you can hear it again, I don't trust these people. Many have used tradition to justify a personal power move, or doctrine that fits their contemporary view of what God has said, which ultimately contradicts the NT message, or uses volumes of interpretation to justify it in the mind of the intellectuals(the average educated person would read the material with the conclusive thought, Huh?)? I've read many catholic people including yourself justify tradition by stating the catholic(roman) church defined the bible and what went into it, so how can we use it to chastise the very people who put it together? First i think catholic people who hold this position are not aware that the roman bishop had very little input(from what i understand) in the selection of the biblical canon. Second, Jesus used the Very scriptures the religious heads used, to rebuke them. I didn't read these heads as saying Jesus had no right to rebuke them with their own scriptures, because he(Jesus) had no part in their selection as canon law. These religious storehouses if i am correct, deviated from the spirit of the scriptures, re-interpreted them to fill their own agenda of doctrine, or power, and used them as an oppression over the people through ritual obeservance. Jesus called what came out of their mouths as white-washed graves. Oh, but Jesus promised to protect his church from major error, and the gates of hell would not prevail against her. Fine. I tend to think that Jesus did not have the roman church in mind when he made this promise, but the church of believers(the invisible church) which has withstood death and hell even at the hands of rome, as well as the secular world which to destroy all traces of belief in this Jesus, even up to this day. For the roman church to take credit for this is adsurd, self-centered pomposity, and self-dellussive granduer with no basis in reality. This is a very short over-view of how i see it, and does not include all the intricate details that would involve a mega-bit post. >The Catholic theology of the Mass does not involve a "re-sacrificing" of >Jesus. A better way to think about it is as a re-presentation of the >one Sacrifice. >The sacrifice is effected by the double consecration. Sacraments are >signs, efecting what they signify. The symbolism of the double >consecration is clear enough -- the separation of Jesus's Body and >Blood. So that's where the sacrifical part of the Mass is. Communion >is partaking in the fruit of the Sacrifice, once it is accomplished. Ok Joe, but catholics insist that they can "only" receive Jesus at the hands of an officially(roman) ordained priest, thus excluding any other means of reception(read your power over God statement). This would bind a believer to the feet of the priest with no room for movement. Jesus says we are bought as slaves to him with a great price, but Jesus is not bound by the selfishness of men. So to bind ourselves to men in this manner is to make ourselves as slaves to the priest(a man) if we want fellowship with God through Jesus, a sort of spiritual extortion, job security thing for the priest, and slavery to the whims of whoever happens to be priest or bishop at any given moment in time. This leaves ample room for the corruption that such power yields as been plainly demonstrated through history. >-- >Joe Buehler Sigh...I'm done. This is my view as in contrast to catholic view and does not constitute fire and brimestone to those who do not hold to it(-). Barry P.S. I cross-posted this to s.c.r because it is appropriate. Please follow-up to t.r.m