Thank you for a fascinating article, I have learnt a lot and look forward to your article about Catholicism. I am thinking of seeking sanctuary from modern Anglicanism in the RC church.
Karen, prayers for you on your spiritual journey. Just know the grass is definitely not greener in the RC Church. Modernism plagues most parishes. Godspeed!
That is very kind, thank you. I have embarked on instruction in my local RC church and will be needing all the prayers I can get, I am quite sure. It is surprisingly hard to make this journey.
One of our co-hosts officially joined the Catholic Church last week after a long, messy and complex conversion process that included encountering the Anglican faith in the Church of England (at Durham Cathedral) and then worshipping in the Anglican Church of Canada before pursuing graduate studies at Canada's leading Anglican seminary (Trinity College at the University of Toronto) where he first encountered proper Catholicism. You can see more here about his journey: https://www.cofcomcat.com/post/we-ve-come-home-to-rome
If he were to give you advice, it would be to pursue the truth and follow it where it leads.
Spot-on Fr. Calvin! I've been attempting to present the very same facts to a number of Roman Catholics I know, and the replies I get are just short of diabolical. We who have fully vetted the history of the Church IN Brittania, know that they predated the Church OF England, and, in fact, predated the Church of Rome. After all, we do see the bishops of England at the Council of Nicaea long before the Roman Catholic Church took over leadership of the the Church in England.
As someone who, with my church, gradually separated from the Episcopal Church after the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003, I’ve had way too much experience of separation in the Church. We aligned with the African Anglican Church (Nigeria, if I’m remembering correctly) and eventually became part of a diocese in the Anglican Church in North America. But communion with heretics continues to be a problem, now that the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be supporting the blessing of homosexual relationships.
But wasn’t the early church constantly battling over heretical departures from Christian doctrine? There was Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and no doubt many others. It seems the battle for the true faith will not end until Christ returns and all things are put under His feet. In the meantime, I’m thankful for you and the others whose devotion to truth and facts and history keep the rest of us grounded.
Thank you for your insights on this. Not all Roman Catholics have such a binary view of Henry VIII. Sadly I believe you are right that the matter of his annulment was decided on the basis of politics rather than the basis of prudence and wisdom that the Holy Father should have considered. I was shocked when in college, my professor (a fellow proud Roman Catholic) defended Henry VIII regarding his treatment by Rome! I was very surprised to learn so much about this period in history of which I was ignorant.
I hope we can one day see greater unification between England and Rome, and a renewed reverence and protection for the many sacred Cathedrals and Monasteries that have shaped the character and spirituality of your country for centuries. I look forward to seeing your thoughts about Catholicism in your forthcoming article.
I am glad that you are defending the catholicity of the Anglican Church because that is a door into acknowledging the catholicity of the Reformed church in Scotland (Presbyterian), in the Netherlands, in France, etc. I come from the Dutch Reformed tradition which speaks of the catholic nature of the church and the apostolicity of her doctrine. If you look at the historical background of the Synod Dort (which produced the Canons of Dort) in Dordtrecht, Netherlands, there were a variety of Anglican representatives there, who also played a role in formulating Reformed doctrine in contradiction to the errors of Jacobus ARminius. If you read the intent of many of the Reformers they saw these various national churches as an expression of the catholic faith against the charges of schism by Rome.
Well done, Father Calvin! Your command of history and theological matters is very instructive. I especially like to hear you and Laurence Fox debate on "Fox and Father." Yours is the voice of reason and firm conviction.
Thanks for this thoughtful contribution to Christian unity. I'm a Catholic (in full communion with Rome), but I grew up Evangelical Protestant with a one-year stop in the Episcopal (U.S.) Church during college (or at university, as you folks say). Anyway, Christian unity is near and dear to my heart, and I have a great love for Anglican aesthetics and tradition.
I agree with your approach of taking a hard look at apostolic succession. I can affirm what you've said about Apostolicae Curae not possessing the charism of infallibility (and I can't imagine any Catholic claiming that it does). Nor is it a teaching concerning the deposit of faith — it couldn't be, since it concerns events centuries after the death of the apostles. Instead, it's a classic example of a prudential judgment as a function of the Church's governing authority. In this way, it's similar to an annulment. The Church can rarely know for certain whether a marriage or an ordination are valid, but she makes the best judgment she can based on the evidence. It's entirely possible that Apostolicae Curae could someday be overturned as the fruit of new evidence and considerations.
Regardless, from what I understand, for those CoE clergy who have an unbroken chain of succession from Eastern or Old Catholic ordinations, I see no reason to conclude that their ordinations are invalid. The amplification of this practice within the Anglican Communion could go a long way toward greater Christian unity.
Ultimately, though, I find the historical and biblical arguments for papal supremacy to be entirely convincing. We can only achieve full unity through the Bishop of Rome. That said, full communion does not necessarily require direct governance, as the various sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches demonstrate. We may pray that the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may some day be given such a status.
I've made a realization since my original comment, which may contribute somewhat to the discussion. I am no expert on Apostolicae Curse or the arguments on which it depends, but female ordination is an additional development which I think ought to be taken into account.
To my knowledge, the separated bishops whose ordinations Rome has never questioned, such as in the Eastern, Armenian, and Coptic churches, have never attempted female ordination. Perhaps this is a fruit of their apostolic charism. The same cannot be said of Anglican bishops, so that may tell us something about their own validity to the extent that we can judge a communion of alleged bishops by its fruit. It's not definitive proof, but it does give me pause.
If Modern Catholicism wasn't in such shambles, you'd have a fantastic argument here. But the post-Vatican II Church is weak, ineffectual, and lacks authority.
I disagree. Modern Catholicism is in shambles in many ways, but I would suggest that so are all Christian Churches as long as Christian Churches remain divided among themselves. Modern Catholicism encompasses all Catholics, so I would also ask, Rob, if you are referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, or are you also including the other Latin Rites and all the Eastern Rites? I don't think it's completely fair to say that the Catholic Church lacks authority, as the Pope and the Bishops who are all united with him constitute the teaching authority of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium). I also disagree that the Catholic Church is ineffectual. There may be many parishes that you might consider ineffectual, but there are many dioceses and parishes that are effective. What do you think?
This is going to come down to personal experience. I've seen how two or so generations have been largely lost due to poor formation at the seminary and catechetical level, but this is the blink of an eye in the span of Church history. It's also a largely regional phenomenon. The Catholic Church has been growing like wildfire under string leadership in Africa and Asia. Even in the United States, a recent revival is bearing some serious fruit, from apostolates like Word on Fire, Ascension, the St Paul Center, the Augustine Institute, FOCUS, The Pillar, Hallow, and Catholic Answers, to name a few. We're building churches in my diocese, which seems to be typical in the West and South of the U.S.
These cycles of corruption and renewal are the common theme of the history of the Church, and the history of God's people, Israel, for that matter.
Fair comment. I would note that most to all churches, Anglican and Catholic, trinitarian and likely unitarian, are growing rapidly in the Global South.
But your original comment does have merit. You do not find female priestess developments among the Coptics or Armenians, for example. It's something to ponder.
Thankyou Calvin for this article it has helped fill in a lot of factual gaps. I'm only a novice in these matters, but it would be interesting to explore how these same chronological facts might be interpreted with more nuance through the lens of the Sensus fidei (Lumen Gentium 12; CCC 92) over the period. Perhaps at grass roots level the imaginative draw and sacramental experience of being part of the mystical body of Christ; each person a uniquely colourful character in the 'Christian Story', was 'heavily edited' as a result of the events you outline, and the gaps filled by rhetoric and black and white thinking, leading to the continued polarisation we still see today, even in parts of this thread. Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.. I'm still trying to understand what it is I'm trying to say :)
Great essay. I would have liked a mention of St Alban, the powerful Pelagians who some scholars see as a sign of independence and the still-extant Romano-Briton church protected from invaders by St Germanus of Auxerre.
I cannot thank you enough for this text. I think it is going to teach me so so much, it is wonderful. Lots for a person like me to learn and this is magistral.
I rarely disagree with you but must comment today. These rules are all man made. None of them should replace the clear, unequivocal rules in the Bible, dictated by God himself. We are neither catholic nor protestant - we are followers of Jesus, and all these rules and precepts merely muddy the waters. When the church split from the original jewish body of believers it seems to have felt it must reinvent the wheel. Celibacy was not ordered by God, in fact the very opposite. All of the rules on ‘both sides’ are merely the attempt of humans to replace God’s own rules, so will fail and cause only division. Return to the roots and there you will find no catholic or anglican, no jew or greek, no bondsman or free. Only sheep and a shepherd. Since when did the sheep dictate terms to the shepherd, and to what end and at what cost?
Divine Liturgy is fundamentally rooted in the Temple worship. Christ transferred the priestly Authority of Malchizadek from the Levitical blood line of Zadok to the Apostolic Mystical line of the Church, & every Consecrated Church is now The Temple, every Sacrifice IS the SAME Sacrifice of Christ. This is 100% from Scriptures; to interpret anything else from them is manifest prelest. While Rome has been mistaken to expand mandatory celibacy beyond the Monasteries, the clear prototype for the Monastic paradigm was in the Essenes, of whom Saint John the Forerunner is the Greatest.
Rome has invented many things but not as many as you think.
The priestly line was transferred to Jesus not Rome. He is the King and Priest and the Sacrifice. We the christian’s are a kingdom of kings and priests, not institutions but each and every one of us. Even a five year old child who has accepted Christ becomes a subject of the Kingdom. No mystery at all. Cutting off relations with the early church has led to institutional atrophy. A fresh reading of the word of God shows the church as a whole people carry that anointing. Jesus declared how and nothing had changed or ever will. These heavy burdens we make for ourselves are like the Levites created. Burdens that divide and crush. We are all followers of one Saviour through one baptism, in one body with Christ at the head. His burden is easy and his yoke light. We merely need to love the Lord our God with all our being and our neighbour as ourselves. Why do we choke over gnats when it all clearly written in God’s own handwriting? Catholic or Anglican, who is the arm and who the leg of the body? Who fit to exclude others, who able to tell God how to run His church? Whilst we argue the world goes to hell. One flock and One shepherd. Let’s accept Jesus’ decisions on how church should be and then work together to carry out the Great Commission. Otherwise it just becomes the Great Conversation!
The OT is a foreshadowing to the things which will come.
Who is chosen to do what ?
There are two covenants with jews and the new one !!
Below are NO JEWS, these are believer in Jesus Christ, gentiles like Melchizedek and still priests !!
Revelation 1:5-6
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
1 Peter 2:5 (KJV) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
The bible provides insight, it is important to know and understand the bible
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You said NOT dictated by God, the holy spirit is God.
That all Scripture is “inspired by God” means that each word that is written in the Bible has been written in it because God has inspired the Bible author to precisely write down that word. When Paul speaks here about “Scripture” (and not’ Scriptures’) it underlines the unity of all Bible books as one whole, “and the Scripture cannot be broken”
Yes I said not dictated by God because that is what Catholic Christians believe. If you believe differently that is fine. "Dictated" is not the same as "inspired" according to Catholic teaching. Again, you might differ, and that's fine. When St. Paul referred to Scripture he was of course referring to the Old Testament. Or do you think St. Paul sat down and said "now I am going to write a new book for the Bible?" St. Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels were written. He had no idea there was a New Testament (because there was not one when he wrote his letters). How many books are in the Bible you read? Obviously you have a different idea of inspiration and the Bible compared to what the Catholic Church teaches, and again, that is fine. I am just sharing my perspective as a Catholic Christian. You are free to agree or not. No matter, we can both be Christian. Right?
The first five books (The Torah) were, through Moses, and that is where the instructions for the structure and required behaviour is. The historic, poetic and prophetic were less so, though the prophetic was clearly divinely inspired. Here they confirm the futureof the church looks very similar to the past. The New Testament begins with historical records and the remainder is God-breathed through the disciples and prophets of course. Jesus' instructions and teachings confirmed the original, as do the final books as they describe the future of the Church. As a protestant of Jewish extraction I am sorry that I wasn't aware the Catholic understanding.
You are free to believe the first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses, that is fine. But the Catholic Church does not teach that understanding as binding on the Catholic faithful.
Thank you for a fascinating article, I have learnt a lot and look forward to your article about Catholicism. I am thinking of seeking sanctuary from modern Anglicanism in the RC church.
I would not blame you at all. In fact, I will pray for you on your spiritual journey.
Thank you so much 🙏
Karen, prayers for you on your spiritual journey. Just know the grass is definitely not greener in the RC Church. Modernism plagues most parishes. Godspeed!
That is very kind, thank you. I have embarked on instruction in my local RC church and will be needing all the prayers I can get, I am quite sure. It is surprisingly hard to make this journey.
One of our co-hosts officially joined the Catholic Church last week after a long, messy and complex conversion process that included encountering the Anglican faith in the Church of England (at Durham Cathedral) and then worshipping in the Anglican Church of Canada before pursuing graduate studies at Canada's leading Anglican seminary (Trinity College at the University of Toronto) where he first encountered proper Catholicism. You can see more here about his journey: https://www.cofcomcat.com/post/we-ve-come-home-to-rome
If he were to give you advice, it would be to pursue the truth and follow it where it leads.
God bless you on your faith journey!
Travis, does your friend have any thought on Pope Francis' controversies, such as the Pachamama veneration?
Thank you. I will follow the link you provided. 🙏
Spot-on Fr. Calvin! I've been attempting to present the very same facts to a number of Roman Catholics I know, and the replies I get are just short of diabolical. We who have fully vetted the history of the Church IN Brittania, know that they predated the Church OF England, and, in fact, predated the Church of Rome. After all, we do see the bishops of England at the Council of Nicaea long before the Roman Catholic Church took over leadership of the the Church in England.
A very good point.
Tertullian, ~200 AD, wrote "the places of the Britons not reached by the Romans but subject to Christ" adding, "Christ's name reigns."
Roman Catholics are diabolical? Not only is that false, it's not charitable.
I did NOT say they were diabolical. I said many were just short of that. In other words, many were mean spirited about it and quite uncharitable.
Sorry I misread your earlier post. Mea Culpa.
1 Cor 1:31 Therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.
Thank you for this.
As someone who, with my church, gradually separated from the Episcopal Church after the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003, I’ve had way too much experience of separation in the Church. We aligned with the African Anglican Church (Nigeria, if I’m remembering correctly) and eventually became part of a diocese in the Anglican Church in North America. But communion with heretics continues to be a problem, now that the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be supporting the blessing of homosexual relationships.
But wasn’t the early church constantly battling over heretical departures from Christian doctrine? There was Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and no doubt many others. It seems the battle for the true faith will not end until Christ returns and all things are put under His feet. In the meantime, I’m thankful for you and the others whose devotion to truth and facts and history keep the rest of us grounded.
Precisely. There have been divisions since the dawn of the Church.
Fascinating read. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you for reading. 👍
Thank you for your insights on this. Not all Roman Catholics have such a binary view of Henry VIII. Sadly I believe you are right that the matter of his annulment was decided on the basis of politics rather than the basis of prudence and wisdom that the Holy Father should have considered. I was shocked when in college, my professor (a fellow proud Roman Catholic) defended Henry VIII regarding his treatment by Rome! I was very surprised to learn so much about this period in history of which I was ignorant.
I hope we can one day see greater unification between England and Rome, and a renewed reverence and protection for the many sacred Cathedrals and Monasteries that have shaped the character and spirituality of your country for centuries. I look forward to seeing your thoughts about Catholicism in your forthcoming article.
God bless you. I am with you on this. 🙏
I am glad that you are defending the catholicity of the Anglican Church because that is a door into acknowledging the catholicity of the Reformed church in Scotland (Presbyterian), in the Netherlands, in France, etc. I come from the Dutch Reformed tradition which speaks of the catholic nature of the church and the apostolicity of her doctrine. If you look at the historical background of the Synod Dort (which produced the Canons of Dort) in Dordtrecht, Netherlands, there were a variety of Anglican representatives there, who also played a role in formulating Reformed doctrine in contradiction to the errors of Jacobus ARminius. If you read the intent of many of the Reformers they saw these various national churches as an expression of the catholic faith against the charges of schism by Rome.
Thanks for reminding us of history some would like us to forget.
Off topic, I hope you post your address at the upcoming Colson conference. I have so many travels, I don't think it doable for me to be there.
Well done, Father Calvin! Your command of history and theological matters is very instructive. I especially like to hear you and Laurence Fox debate on "Fox and Father." Yours is the voice of reason and firm conviction.
Thank you! 🤩
Thank you for the article. Very insightful and encouraging.
Great article, I look forward to your next one about Catholicism.
Much appreciated, Ben. 🙌
Thanks for this thoughtful contribution to Christian unity. I'm a Catholic (in full communion with Rome), but I grew up Evangelical Protestant with a one-year stop in the Episcopal (U.S.) Church during college (or at university, as you folks say). Anyway, Christian unity is near and dear to my heart, and I have a great love for Anglican aesthetics and tradition.
I agree with your approach of taking a hard look at apostolic succession. I can affirm what you've said about Apostolicae Curae not possessing the charism of infallibility (and I can't imagine any Catholic claiming that it does). Nor is it a teaching concerning the deposit of faith — it couldn't be, since it concerns events centuries after the death of the apostles. Instead, it's a classic example of a prudential judgment as a function of the Church's governing authority. In this way, it's similar to an annulment. The Church can rarely know for certain whether a marriage or an ordination are valid, but she makes the best judgment she can based on the evidence. It's entirely possible that Apostolicae Curae could someday be overturned as the fruit of new evidence and considerations.
Regardless, from what I understand, for those CoE clergy who have an unbroken chain of succession from Eastern or Old Catholic ordinations, I see no reason to conclude that their ordinations are invalid. The amplification of this practice within the Anglican Communion could go a long way toward greater Christian unity.
Ultimately, though, I find the historical and biblical arguments for papal supremacy to be entirely convincing. We can only achieve full unity through the Bishop of Rome. That said, full communion does not necessarily require direct governance, as the various sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches demonstrate. We may pray that the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may some day be given such a status.
Thank you for your thorough and charitable response. God bless you!
I've made a realization since my original comment, which may contribute somewhat to the discussion. I am no expert on Apostolicae Curse or the arguments on which it depends, but female ordination is an additional development which I think ought to be taken into account.
To my knowledge, the separated bishops whose ordinations Rome has never questioned, such as in the Eastern, Armenian, and Coptic churches, have never attempted female ordination. Perhaps this is a fruit of their apostolic charism. The same cannot be said of Anglican bishops, so that may tell us something about their own validity to the extent that we can judge a communion of alleged bishops by its fruit. It's not definitive proof, but it does give me pause.
If Modern Catholicism wasn't in such shambles, you'd have a fantastic argument here. But the post-Vatican II Church is weak, ineffectual, and lacks authority.
I disagree. Modern Catholicism is in shambles in many ways, but I would suggest that so are all Christian Churches as long as Christian Churches remain divided among themselves. Modern Catholicism encompasses all Catholics, so I would also ask, Rob, if you are referring specifically to the Roman Catholic Church, or are you also including the other Latin Rites and all the Eastern Rites? I don't think it's completely fair to say that the Catholic Church lacks authority, as the Pope and the Bishops who are all united with him constitute the teaching authority of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium). I also disagree that the Catholic Church is ineffectual. There may be many parishes that you might consider ineffectual, but there are many dioceses and parishes that are effective. What do you think?
This is going to come down to personal experience. I've seen how two or so generations have been largely lost due to poor formation at the seminary and catechetical level, but this is the blink of an eye in the span of Church history. It's also a largely regional phenomenon. The Catholic Church has been growing like wildfire under string leadership in Africa and Asia. Even in the United States, a recent revival is bearing some serious fruit, from apostolates like Word on Fire, Ascension, the St Paul Center, the Augustine Institute, FOCUS, The Pillar, Hallow, and Catholic Answers, to name a few. We're building churches in my diocese, which seems to be typical in the West and South of the U.S.
These cycles of corruption and renewal are the common theme of the history of the Church, and the history of God's people, Israel, for that matter.
Fair comment. I would note that most to all churches, Anglican and Catholic, trinitarian and likely unitarian, are growing rapidly in the Global South.
But your original comment does have merit. You do not find female priestess developments among the Coptics or Armenians, for example. It's something to ponder.
*strong leadership
Thankyou Calvin for this article it has helped fill in a lot of factual gaps. I'm only a novice in these matters, but it would be interesting to explore how these same chronological facts might be interpreted with more nuance through the lens of the Sensus fidei (Lumen Gentium 12; CCC 92) over the period. Perhaps at grass roots level the imaginative draw and sacramental experience of being part of the mystical body of Christ; each person a uniquely colourful character in the 'Christian Story', was 'heavily edited' as a result of the events you outline, and the gaps filled by rhetoric and black and white thinking, leading to the continued polarisation we still see today, even in parts of this thread. Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.. I'm still trying to understand what it is I'm trying to say :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 💭
Great article Calvin. I really only knew a brief history of this from school. It's good to know our common roots in our mother church.
Thank you, Liz. 🙌
Great essay. I would have liked a mention of St Alban, the powerful Pelagians who some scholars see as a sign of independence and the still-extant Romano-Briton church protected from invaders by St Germanus of Auxerre.
I cannot thank you enough for this text. I think it is going to teach me so so much, it is wonderful. Lots for a person like me to learn and this is magistral.
Thank you, Catherine. 👍
I rarely disagree with you but must comment today. These rules are all man made. None of them should replace the clear, unequivocal rules in the Bible, dictated by God himself. We are neither catholic nor protestant - we are followers of Jesus, and all these rules and precepts merely muddy the waters. When the church split from the original jewish body of believers it seems to have felt it must reinvent the wheel. Celibacy was not ordered by God, in fact the very opposite. All of the rules on ‘both sides’ are merely the attempt of humans to replace God’s own rules, so will fail and cause only division. Return to the roots and there you will find no catholic or anglican, no jew or greek, no bondsman or free. Only sheep and a shepherd. Since when did the sheep dictate terms to the shepherd, and to what end and at what cost?
Divine Liturgy is fundamentally rooted in the Temple worship. Christ transferred the priestly Authority of Malchizadek from the Levitical blood line of Zadok to the Apostolic Mystical line of the Church, & every Consecrated Church is now The Temple, every Sacrifice IS the SAME Sacrifice of Christ. This is 100% from Scriptures; to interpret anything else from them is manifest prelest. While Rome has been mistaken to expand mandatory celibacy beyond the Monasteries, the clear prototype for the Monastic paradigm was in the Essenes, of whom Saint John the Forerunner is the Greatest.
Rome has invented many things but not as many as you think.
The priestly line was transferred to Jesus not Rome. He is the King and Priest and the Sacrifice. We the christian’s are a kingdom of kings and priests, not institutions but each and every one of us. Even a five year old child who has accepted Christ becomes a subject of the Kingdom. No mystery at all. Cutting off relations with the early church has led to institutional atrophy. A fresh reading of the word of God shows the church as a whole people carry that anointing. Jesus declared how and nothing had changed or ever will. These heavy burdens we make for ourselves are like the Levites created. Burdens that divide and crush. We are all followers of one Saviour through one baptism, in one body with Christ at the head. His burden is easy and his yoke light. We merely need to love the Lord our God with all our being and our neighbour as ourselves. Why do we choke over gnats when it all clearly written in God’s own handwriting? Catholic or Anglican, who is the arm and who the leg of the body? Who fit to exclude others, who able to tell God how to run His church? Whilst we argue the world goes to hell. One flock and One shepherd. Let’s accept Jesus’ decisions on how church should be and then work together to carry out the Great Commission. Otherwise it just becomes the Great Conversation!
Christ did not marry an invisible woman. The Church has ALWAYS been visible, the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Melchizedek was a Canaanite, not Jewish and not part of the chosen people, according to the book of Genesis.
The OT is a foreshadowing to the things which will come.
Who is chosen to do what ?
There are two covenants with jews and the new one !!
Below are NO JEWS, these are believer in Jesus Christ, gentiles like Melchizedek and still priests !!
Revelation 1:5-6
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
1 Peter 2:5 (KJV) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Divine liturgy is fundamentally rooted in God, not in Temple worship.
Not every church is a temple, every HUMAN BEING (no worldly church is needed for that) is a temple ! (1 Cor. 3:16).
NO further SACRIFICE is needed, Jesus Christ said it is finished. If you disagree please provide us with scriptural proof of your understanding.
What roots should we return to, Margaret?
The Bible was not dictated by God, at least according to Catholic understanding.
The bible provides insight, it is important to know and understand the bible
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Yes of course! I don't think anyone here said anything different?
You said NOT dictated by God, the holy spirit is God.
That all Scripture is “inspired by God” means that each word that is written in the Bible has been written in it because God has inspired the Bible author to precisely write down that word. When Paul speaks here about “Scripture” (and not’ Scriptures’) it underlines the unity of all Bible books as one whole, “and the Scripture cannot be broken”
Yes I said not dictated by God because that is what Catholic Christians believe. If you believe differently that is fine. "Dictated" is not the same as "inspired" according to Catholic teaching. Again, you might differ, and that's fine. When St. Paul referred to Scripture he was of course referring to the Old Testament. Or do you think St. Paul sat down and said "now I am going to write a new book for the Bible?" St. Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels were written. He had no idea there was a New Testament (because there was not one when he wrote his letters). How many books are in the Bible you read? Obviously you have a different idea of inspiration and the Bible compared to what the Catholic Church teaches, and again, that is fine. I am just sharing my perspective as a Catholic Christian. You are free to agree or not. No matter, we can both be Christian. Right?
The Greek word for inspired is
θεόπνευστος
theopneustos
theh-op'-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.
If this is not from God, then who has written the catholic catechism ?
I leave you in your believe, i have done my bit to let you know.
Good luck for the future
The first five books (The Torah) were, through Moses, and that is where the instructions for the structure and required behaviour is. The historic, poetic and prophetic were less so, though the prophetic was clearly divinely inspired. Here they confirm the futureof the church looks very similar to the past. The New Testament begins with historical records and the remainder is God-breathed through the disciples and prophets of course. Jesus' instructions and teachings confirmed the original, as do the final books as they describe the future of the Church. As a protestant of Jewish extraction I am sorry that I wasn't aware the Catholic understanding.
You are free to believe the first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses, that is fine. But the Catholic Church does not teach that understanding as binding on the Catholic faithful.
Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that. I am glad to know more so that I can speak with Catholic friends with more understanding.