I was watching a T.V. show with Scott Han on EWTN
http://www.scotthahn.com/
He claimed that he could never ever understand the book of Revelation after studying it for perhaps something like 10 years as a non-Roman Catholic. And then he went to liturgy and he could understand it because it looked the same as things in the liturgy.
He makes a very valid point that a lot of stuff in the book of Revelation can look liturgical.
But what would the liturgy be all about. In effect his answer does not seem to clarify either the liturgy or the book of Revelation as far as I am concerned, because the definitions of both of them depend on the other one and cannot be understood separate from one another therefor he is just saying that one thing he does not understand means the same as something else he does not understand on account of the something else is a copy of the first thing he did not understand. Of course to be fair he allegedly does understand the liturgy, so it supposedly would not be like I said, but I think it might be like I said in reality.
It could show that watching the liturgy might get you to think more about what is written in the book of Revelation, but that would not actually teach you whatever was meant to be taught, unless you already understood the book of Revelation.
Of course to be fair perhaps if I bought the book (The Lamb's Supper: Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn) he was talking about I could understand, but I did not buy the book, I merely watched his T.V. show where he mentioned the book near the end. And also to be fair he allegedly does understand the liturgy
I am wondering people's ideas about this. And just happened to post it because I thought it was interesting so I wanted to share it.
Do you think that if someone merely copies the liturgy like elements in Revelation in the form of literal liturgy based on but not exactly the same as the book, it can actually hide the meaning if one says (in their heart) now that we copied it we do not have to figure it out, because the real purpose was to create this copy we have here?
Or to put it another way
If A is a symbol for B
But instead we say A is a symbol for saying "A" out loud in liturgy but do not think about it as B. One could hide the entire meaning of the book through liturgy and blind people to the truth.
On the other hand if someone hear's "A" in liturgy and knows it is a symbol for B, they can be benefited by the liturgy by being reminded of B which they already know in spite of the fact that it keeps most people in the dark.
Do you think people often ignore the examples of worship of God in the book of Revelation to chase after phrases like "anti-christ" that are not actually in the book of Revelation?
What do you think is the practical application of knowing about the liturgical looking nature of certain events in Revelation?
http://www.scotthahn.com/
He claimed that he could never ever understand the book of Revelation after studying it for perhaps something like 10 years as a non-Roman Catholic. And then he went to liturgy and he could understand it because it looked the same as things in the liturgy.
He makes a very valid point that a lot of stuff in the book of Revelation can look liturgical.
But what would the liturgy be all about. In effect his answer does not seem to clarify either the liturgy or the book of Revelation as far as I am concerned, because the definitions of both of them depend on the other one and cannot be understood separate from one another therefor he is just saying that one thing he does not understand means the same as something else he does not understand on account of the something else is a copy of the first thing he did not understand. Of course to be fair he allegedly does understand the liturgy, so it supposedly would not be like I said, but I think it might be like I said in reality.
It could show that watching the liturgy might get you to think more about what is written in the book of Revelation, but that would not actually teach you whatever was meant to be taught, unless you already understood the book of Revelation.
Of course to be fair perhaps if I bought the book (The Lamb's Supper: Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn) he was talking about I could understand, but I did not buy the book, I merely watched his T.V. show where he mentioned the book near the end. And also to be fair he allegedly does understand the liturgy
I am wondering people's ideas about this. And just happened to post it because I thought it was interesting so I wanted to share it.
Do you think that if someone merely copies the liturgy like elements in Revelation in the form of literal liturgy based on but not exactly the same as the book, it can actually hide the meaning if one says (in their heart) now that we copied it we do not have to figure it out, because the real purpose was to create this copy we have here?
Or to put it another way
If A is a symbol for B
But instead we say A is a symbol for saying "A" out loud in liturgy but do not think about it as B. One could hide the entire meaning of the book through liturgy and blind people to the truth.
On the other hand if someone hear's "A" in liturgy and knows it is a symbol for B, they can be benefited by the liturgy by being reminded of B which they already know in spite of the fact that it keeps most people in the dark.
Do you think people often ignore the examples of worship of God in the book of Revelation to chase after phrases like "anti-christ" that are not actually in the book of Revelation?
What do you think is the practical application of knowing about the liturgical looking nature of certain events in Revelation?