(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Just some sharings........ 
Annunciation { Joyful Mystery } (Xavier)
i'm totally lost here. sori. n/t (SK)
Better to be lost here than to be lost for eternity 
Dear German Monk's Follower (Xavier)
Have You Ever Even Opened a Bible ?? (Bill )
By the way, I am brother Francis Xavier, not Damien.............(n/t) (Xavier)
Francis Xavier still around !!?!! Where am i now? Somebody please help! eom (SK)
|
The first two, The Formation and History of the Canon and The Interpretation of Holy Scripture, are not written with polemics in mind, nor with an apologetical agenda. They are simply a small portion of a much longer introduction to A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. by Dom Bernard Orchard [New York, NY: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953]). They seem to present a straightforward understanding of the Church’s teaching for Catholics and therefore are not polemical in nature. I think they are instructive and historically accurate. The third item I am passing along is the Second Vatican Council’s document on Scripture. It is entitled Dei Verbum (God’s Word), or, the Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation. It gives a simple yet a profound overview of the Church’s teaching on God’s revelation and the Scriptures. It is a remarkable document, short, easy to read. I hope you have time to look them over. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Endnote 17) we do not find this false dichotomy, in fact, it sees both sides of the coin. It states, "It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New" (no. 120, emphasis mine). Unfortunately, what most Protestants read about Catholic teaching comes from anti-Catholic sources, such as Geisler, instead of from official Catholic sources. In my company, if someone wants to know our company policy, they should ask me, or consult our companies’ official Policy Manual, not miscellaneous writings or the comments of disgruntled employees. Although I know you, Jerry, read some Catholic material (This Rock, Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.), it is certainly not the norm. Most "anti-Catholics" and run-of-the-mill Evangelicals read exclusively Protestant literature to understand Catholic teaching. How objective or informed is a person who learns everything about Israel and the Jews from exclusively Palestinian sources? Also, I have found that Protestants tend to use Protestant ideals to judge Catholic practice. What would happen, however, if Protestant practice were judged by Catholic ideals? We briefly discussed Norm Geisler’s book (Endnote 1). I mentioned that he is less "hysterical" than the other "anti-Catholic" authors in my library, but that he is still very biased and disingenuous in places. He presents incomplete or weak Catholic arguments without explaining them well or fleshing them out, and then counteracts them with the best Protestant arguments with all the flesh one could want. I have not read the whole book, but the sections I have read were very disappointing; Geisler could have done better. He is an intelligent man with a wide-ranging erudition—I am disappointed. But he has an agenda, as does Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Most of us are propagandists at heart (whether with the unsaved or those we consider misguided), you not excluded. You are very passionate about your faith and properly attempt to share it with others. Emmauel One should not read Geisler as though he has the final word on a matter, or with the confidence that he is objective and playing with all the cards. He is actually very unfair and dishonest in places and this throws a shadow of doubt on his whole article in the section on the "Apocrypha". He injects pregnant terms, attributing them to Catholic teaching, where no such words or teachings exist in the Catholic Church. This is not honest. It is typical of anti-Catholics to build a straw man, distorting the teaching of the Church, and then bravely attack the straw man with fists flying to the cheers of the choir. But what has really been accomplished? They simply dance around destroying an illusion, they bear false witness against their Catholic brothers in Christ, they mislead their naive followers, and they exacerbate the already scandalous disunity that further erodes any possibility of Christian unity. The world looks at the disunity and laughs, when they should be seeing visible unity and bowing the knee to the Savior, and believing in the God of the Bible (Jn 17). One should not put too much trust in this type of anti-Catholic material which is often presented as scholarly and objective. It should only be used as a stimulus to further research, honesty, and prayer. Even James White, one of the premier Evangelical debaters, admits that the Catholic position is winning some decisive victories; he is very concerned. The Reformation progeny is suffering some serious difficulties and it will only get worse as the Catholic Church again revives, as she is doing, and as she has done so often throughout the centuries. Us converts, and there are ever increasing numbers, will certainly be a strong contributing factor. Someday I hope you will join us. Emmanuel |
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page