This Catholic Journey
That's a great post Amber! You are a gifted apologist!
Thanks, Tim! :)
Amber, please visit my blog!!!!
God Bless YOU on this journey.
We are kind of neighbors.........I live in Sacramento!!!
Jeanne
Hi Amber, I enjoyed this article. I have seen Catholic apologists assert similar arguments before, but this was succinct and straightforward, making it very easy to understand. Thank you!
PS. Congratulations blessings on the additions to your family.
One of the first 7 Councils stated that, he who says that Mary was not ever-virgin ... let him be anathama. That's good enough for me
Indeed, William! Even Luther held this belief, if I recall correctly. It is only recently that people have believed otherwise!
Amber,
I just read your "works and faith" section and must say you did your research well.
Faith alone will not save you, however, the works that apostles are writing about are doing the works of Christ just like he did for everyone while walking this earth. Christ served his fellow man in love and kindness. There is no greater love than to lay your life down for another human being. Works can be also be regarded as spreading the Word of the Lord as did the disciples through a Christ like heart.
My wife was Catholic and left the church do to all the "extras" that were regularly preached. My family is saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, God's saving grace and the willingness to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ with the love Christ taught all of us through his Holy Words and actions.
Furthermore, treat people the way Christ treated you... Christ has an eternal gift that is free for all of those who believe, both Jew and Gentile (Jew first then Gentile).
There are many "man made" laws that many churches today adopt. These are not from God, rather man and they will not get an individual into heaven either. You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. Certainly, good works and following man made laws will not get you there.
Never the less, you have a very nice website and I only pray that the Lord Jesus Christ continues to bless you and may lost souls find your site and may it lead them to our Lord Jesus Christ and eternal peace.
"the works that apostles are writing about are doing the works of Christ just like he did for everyone while walking this earth."
Jeff, I completely agree with you here as this IS Catholic teaching. (In addition, there are things which Christ himself commanded of us that are necessary for salvation, such as baptism and keeping the commandments.) It is a common misconception that "works" as defined by the Church are a big list of rules that one must follow in order to be "good enough" to get to heaven. This is not the case, however, and not in line with Church teaching.
You are right that one must be born again to enter heaven... Every Christian is born again at their baptism, at which point the stain of original sin is washed away and one is made pure. However, through our sinful nature, as we grow, we must constantly renew our conversion toward God through repentance, lest we lose our salvation, as Scripture clearly warns us. ACTING like a Christian is never enough. We must BE one: heart, soul and action.
The Catholic Church has never taught, nor does she teach now that following man made laws or doing good works will get one to heaven. This is how the Pharisees were. They flaunted their works but their heart did not reveal a proper motive for their works. If a Catholic believes that they must "work" their way to heaven, they are completely missing the true teaching of the Church.
The Catholic Church does not promote the following of man-made laws, nor is it an organization made of up man-made laws. Rather, it is a 2000 year Church that has remained consistent in doctrine throughout it's entire history. Most of it's practices and disciplines today come directly from early church practices. It is modern faith traditions that have waivered in this area... bringing in "traditions" that do not reflect what the early Christians practiced. But, that doesn't mean these things are bad, either. In fact, many of these practices have worked to bring many people closer to God.
I believe it's important to take these practices and examine their effectiveness in bringing people closer to God before throwing the out the window just because one believes they may be "man-made". Man-made does not have to mean that something is "anti-God".
If you're going to label something as bad or "not of God" for being man-made, then you must apply this rule across the board... No driving cars, no taking medicines, etc.
Thank you for your comments, Jeff. It seems that you have some misunderstandings of the Catholic Church and I encourage you to take a closer look at what the Church truly teaches. You might be surprised at what you find!
God bless!
Amber,
I'm impressed with your thoroughness and direct approach to this teaching and why. You appear to have done your homework well ;) Having had a discussion yesterday at work on the perpetual virginity of Mary, your site made some points I hadn't considered before. Thank you & keep it up!! God Bless!!!
Thank you, Jade! :)
didn't the greeks have words for brother and sister and cousin (Elizabeth),the language in which the new testament was written? As far as Mary at the cross with John, you are quite right that it would have been very offensive for John to be given the mantle to care for Mary and not her sons.However it is really quite a beautiful story of redemption, and for second chances (great comebacks). It was quite proper for Jesus to say "Behold your mother ,behold your son(John)" for as Jesus taught spirit is thicker than blood-Mark 3:35 whoever does the will of my father is my brother ,mother...they were fellow believers. Jesus would not commit his mothers care to a non believer(John7:5 neither did his bretheren beleive in him) Boy, did they miss the boat.Can you imagine growing up as a brother of Jesus and you don't even believe he is the Messiah during his three years of ministry?Yet when gracious conviction came upon there hearts,after His death.and they saw the light, it must have been marvelous but painful at the same time. It is not easy to face your own faithlessness and to see others go in ahead of you and receive blessings(John being commisioned to care for Mary)James and Jude must have been grieved to the core a lot like Peter in facing his denial of Christ.And yet here is what brings me to tears ,just as Peter was strengthened by the power of the holy spirit and to move forward humbly, so were James and Jude.I am sure they understood and accepted what Jesus said to Mary and John at the cross and were just happy to be part of the spititual family, submitting one to another.God would then grace them to pen the books of James and Jude,to be forever remembered.There is my great comeback story.Much forgiven, much loved. The more God breaks you down the more He can use you.Alleluia !
Hello David,
Thank you for responding to this post. I believe the post itself, using Scripture, was sufficient in dispelling the idea that Jesus had literal brothers. The closest they may have been would have been first cousins. Brothers, or brethren, were also used to refer to kinsman. If we understand "brothers" literally, Christ would have had hundreds of brothers, as I showed in my post.
But, here are a few more thoughts. Throughout all of the New Testament, only Jesus is ever referred to as the "son of Mary". Additionally, in Luke 2:41-51 we hear the story of Jesus being found in the temple. Throughout this whole ordeal, there is never a mention of other children. Surely, they would have been mentioned here, at least indicating that they were with their parents as they journeyed to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover with the rest of the family!
Even early Christian writings tell us that Mary remained a virgin:
St. Peter Chrysologus - Where are they who think that the Virgin's conceptions and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other women? ... The Virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin. (SERMONS, No. 117, ML 52, 520 - FC XVII, 200)
St. Leo the Great - And by a new nativity [Christ] was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity.... The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare and a Virgin she remained. (SERMONS, No. 22:2, ML 54, 195 - NPNF XII, 130)
St. John of Damascus - But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed...For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway. The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. (EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, Bk. 4,Chap. 14, MG 94, 1161 - NPNF IX, 86).
St. Jerome and St. Augustine (as early as the 4th century) both refuted with great length what you're suggesting as well (including what you assert using John 7:5). I'd be happy to provide those texts for you (they are too lengthy to type here) if you'd like.
Let me know and I can email them to you!
The bottom line here is that it is only modern Christianity that has asserted, and wrongfully so, that Mary had other children. Historical Christian writing indicate differently for centuries! Even Protestant Reformers themselves believed in Mary's perpetual virginity! Click here to read their quotes and others Why is it so difficult to believe that our MOST HOLY GOD would not want to share the womb he grew in with any sinful man, let alone those who may not follow him (by your assumption)? If one could not even TOUCH the Ark of the Covenant without being struck dead, why should we assume that God incarnate would not preserve Mary with the utmost of grace, chastity and purity? This only seems logical to me. Plus, genealogy records were meticulously kept. Don't you think we'd have someone laying claim to be a direct descendant of Christ if he'd had brothers?
One could use the same logic to state the contary, that Jesus did have brothers and Mary did not remain virgin after His birth,that scripture is ambiguos or unclear,I mean the hebrew word for brother could mean brother,so Jesus having brothers and Mary not remaining virgin does not contradict scripture.As for Mary possibly taking a chastity vow,it is conjecture,not scriptural as you state.It is, as you say, in some non biblical books,books that were rejected by early church fathers and councils, not having any doctrinal value. We do know that child bearing was extremely important in jewish society.It was thought to be a curse of God to be barren and conversely a blessing "to have your quiver full" that is lots of children.Mary would have been stigmatized if she only had one child. She would not have felt very blessed among nazarite women,(and she would have to wait 30 years before Jesus began his ministry).No ,the more normal, the more human Mary was the more i can relate to her being graced by God .For what is grace but unmerited favor.If she were sinless,she would not have been "full of grace", she would have been deserving to bear the Christchild.All jewish girls were born sinners but their bible taught them that one of them would bring forth the Messiah .That is fantastic grace! .The only prerequisite was to be of the family of David and to be a virgin.Matthaw 1:25 says she was a virgin "UNTIL" she brought forth her firstbon son.Her womb was not holy but the fruit thereof was(again fantastic grace!)we tend to memorialize our mountain top experiences like peter at the transfiguration,putting it and God's plan, in a cage Her womb was not put in a holy cage.The bible states no notoriety to there marriage. Mary and Joseph were no different than any other jewish couple ,consumating their marriage,bearing sons and daughters, being blessed by God.Two of the sons would be graciously saved and pen two books of the bible ,JAMES and JUDE When I was a catholic Mary was an almost mythical figure ,pie in the sky.I could relate to her as a mother. She was easier to go to just like it is easier to go to your mother when you are weak or had done something wrong instead of your dad. Now I feel closer to Mary, a kindred spirit, a fellow sinner ,saved by grace ,called to do good works as predestined before time began.And I feel closer to Jesus especially when I am weak or have done something wrong.I don't have have a problem with his male figure because I am his bride to be.In fact Jesus is our all in all, our brother ,sister mother ,father savior, Lord, high priest our alpha omega.I could never go back to any lesser mediator.The bible is not ambiguos on this .It is very clear, "cast all your cares on Him" Alleluia !
David,
While Scripture does not explicitly state that Jesus did or did not have brothers, by a close study of Scripture it becomes clear that the ones you attribute as "brothers" are not his brothers at all, for they are children of OTHER people. This has been refuted for centuries. Are you going to listen to, or ignore, Scripture?
The idea that Mary did not have other children is actually more Scriptural AND logical than her not remaining a virgin. It was also a cultural norm for young women to take a vow of life-long virginity and to be assigned a husband to protect her. In addition, I have centuries of Christian history that backs up this position. Something doesn't have to be inspired by God to be true, otherwise we couldn't trust any account of history at all! Early Christians wrote about such things for a reason... because people tried to assert ideas that weren't true or that were heretical. All of the common arguments you are bringing to the table have been refuted time and again by scholars, and were't even believed by the fathers of Protestantism. What makes your authority to decide greater than that of early Christians or Protestant Reformers?
I'm sorry to hear that you have left the beauty and truth found within the Catholic Church. Please know that you are always welcome to come back and you would be welcomed with open arms. It seems, before you left, you did not know the faith enough to defend her teachings so now you defend against that which you do not fully know or understand. I have found that being Catholic doesn't automatically mean you understand her teachings as one doesn't typically receive apologetic training in catechism or mass. I had to study my way into the church since I thought just like you at one time and was quite anti-Catholic, trying to save everyone from this "old, dried-up, man-made religion". In fact, I used the same arguments you are using! However, Mary's role, according to the Church's teaching, is NEVER on par with Christ's. If that was the message you got, then you misunderstood something or someONE was teaching you incorrectly. These doctrines on Mary do not make her divine or worthy of worship, but they do make her worthy of honor, for without her "yes", salvation history would look quite different.
I would love to continue refuting these arguments against Mary but there are others who might make much more sense than I ever could. It might be a good idea for you to read some books and articles by Catholics devoted to this subject if you'd really like to be able to understand why the Church teaches as it does... since it is not without reason.
I would suggest "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn... or search articles on the subject at Catholic.com. You will find a wealth of information there.
Also, I will likely be sending you the text by St. Jerome regarding how people misinterpret the Scriptures regarding this. He details how th
Also, I will likely be sending you the text by St. Jerome regarding how people misinterpret the Scriptures regarding this. He details how these "brothers" are actually children of other people. (By the way, don't we call fellow Christians "brother" or "sister"? I'm certain they did so then as well since we can see several examples of this throughout Scripture. How do you know THIS is not what was meant?)
Peace be with you!
hello again. you are thankfully really making me dig in deeper and search some more as you say.As far as Acts having 120 people,I always thought that besides the apostles there were also disciples.The first part verse 13 and 14 is very specific, naming apostles ,plus women and Mary, the mother of Jesus and with his bretheren.Some time later Peter is in the midst of the disciples in verse 15 (numbering 120) and he calls them "men and bretheren".I have never heard anyone ever say that bretheren mean the same in verse 14 and 16 . 14 is Jesus relations (I say brothers, you say cousins) and 16 is like brothers in the Lord or fellow coutrymen.Please do not say by my rationale He would have to have 80 or so brothers because by your rationale he would have to have 80 or so cousins (either way abit too much). The point is aren't you supposed to determine the correct meaning of "brother" by it's context. Most of the time His brothers are with Mary , quite natural. Why would she always be with cousins? As far as getting lost in the temple you are quite right that there is no mention of his brothers (by your rationale no mention of any cousins either) so it proves nothing one way or the other.However, ask any mother today which parent would more likely to make such a mistake(leaving a child behind):a couple with an only child or a couple with six or seven kids (the movie "Home Alone" would have never seemed plausible if thy had only one child). I disagrewhen you say it is a modern thought that Jesus had briters..What is new is that some Catholic scholars may be changing ther mind(J.P.Meirs for example that Jerome made a few misakes in his reasoning possibly about Mary's sister).There has been cotroversy over this issue since around the time Constantine made Christianity a state religion.I can't see early christians even thinking about it when they were being persecuted.The issue had it's high noon in 383 when Helvidius met Jerome.Helvidius preached Mary with other children and Jerome the opposite.Jerome carried the day.I liken it to vhs tape winning out over beta . Beta was better but vhs had better marketing and won the day.(news casters use beta because of its better quality).Pope Nicholas in 858 made a decree that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus as well as Alexander 3 in 1159 and Pope Innocent 3 in .1243.No pope has ever used his infallibity power to say Mary had no brothers.I am not denying the strong tradition the Catholic church has in the ever virgin.It is also true that Luther may have written of her ever virgin state.He was faithfull enough though to start a mainsteam movement of getting back to our roots, of and by "solo esciptura"(our constitution) that is "scripture only" thus challenging tradition and practice.By the same token Jerome and Agustine would have probably condemned todays modern catholocism of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary which have less or no scripturla basis(for all have sinned and come s
The two times the pope has used his infallible powers I beleive is 1854 to declare the Immaculate Conception where Mary had no original sin and in 1950 the assumption where Mary did not die but ascended into heaven(a little like might makes right or brawn over brain ,certainly not "solo esciptura nor even tradition) Epiphanius in his book of 80 heresies Panarion said Mary as coredemptrix is heretical.So the debate has been going on for centuries. Some say it may have its roots in the false notion that celibacy is better than marriage (Paul corrected the Corinthianns on this).I wish the bible woud have been more explicit on this but I think ,in Gods' wisdom He put in just enough, as in a parable.You can judge an idea by its' fruit and a little leaven spoileth the whole lump.I think the fruit of a Mary as a graced sinner with children and of "solo escriptura"is a total relaiance on Jesus as our alpha and omega ,our all in all.The fruit of an ever virgin is mary the immaculate ,the ascended, our intercessor to our intercessor, co-redemptrix, the queen of our kingdom....Psalm 68:8 says "I am become a stranger unto my bretheren,an alien unto my mothers' children".May we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.Finally ,there aren't any baptists in heaven ,nor any lutherans or episcopals or pentecostals or catholics or I am of Peter or I am of Paul but, just those souls who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb.Alleluia!
"Helvidius preached Mary with other children and Jerome the opposite.Jerome carried the day."
Of course, Jerome won out! Helvidius was a heretic, speaking against what the Church knew to be true. Just because someone debated against Mary's perpetual virginity does not mean that she didn't remain a virgin. It is for this very reason that we find the early Church defending her virginity to begin with.
"Pope Nicholas in 858 made a decree that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus as well as Alexander 3 in 1159 and Pope Innocent 3 in 1243."
Umm... source? You can't just throw statements out there without backing them up with a source. What decrees are you referring to?
"He was faithfull enough though to start a mainsteam movement of getting back to our roots..."
Roots?! Do you see what he did to Christianity?! When the early Church had disputes, the Church spoke and the matter was settled. Period! No one ran off and started a whole new religion/denomination! Luther has succeeded in causing the biggest divisions in all of Christian history and now each man is his own pope with his own authority, running around telling people that they have the market on the correct interpretation of Scripture and saying that the church got it wrong for 1500 years only to be made right by Luther?! Clearly, then, Christ did not keep his promise to protect his Church from the gates of hell (Mt 16:18-19).
David, please tell me where in the Bible you can find the passage in which Scripture claims to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. And, tell me, by what authority is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine? Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong?
Hello again. I will try to answer your question of why scripture is our sole rule of faith or why "solo escriptura", with another question.When did Jesus ever do anything that was not scriptural? When was the Fathers' will for Jesus ever not scriptural? Are we not to be imitators of Christ? John 1:1 tells us that Jesus is the Word. Luke 4:4 tells us that we are to live by every word of God, every "jot and tittle" (Matt 5:18). "All scripture is inspired,given of God, for doctrine,for reproof, for correction,for instruction in righteousness" (2nd Tim 3:16). "Faith cometh by hearing, hearing the word of God" (Rom 10:17). Is there anything higher ,better ,more authoratative than the word of God ,Holy Scriptures ,Jesus himself? Is tradition on par with the Word ? Are church leaders on par with the Word? Acts 10:17 tells us that it is commendable to search the scriptures to see if what you are being told by church leaders is correct, even if it is St.Paul! Jesus said,"Salvation is of the Jews...." (John4:22) They were carriers of God's Word ,of the Promise of the Messiah.Yet their leaders ,their traditions were subject to judgement by how true they were to the Word. In Matt5:27 Jesus begins to say many times, "You have heard it said(tradition)....but I tell you(real back to the basics scriptural meaning)". So again it is scripture ,Jesus ,the Word that judges men ,religious traditions and customs and their leaders. Those are a few scriptues of why I beleive in "solo escriptura".My catholic mother would say the same thing about me ,"why do you always to say things according to the bible?" Hey,that is how I got saved,thru His Word ,the gospel.Billy Graham's ministry can be summed up in three words, "the bible says...".As a catholic child I listened to this protestant and could find "no fault with him"or his message.Indeed we should have Jesus at the very center of our being and be his friend I thought. Wasn't that what we were trying to learn in the catholic Dominic Savio Club at our parochial school? The apostle Paul says somewhwere there is POWER in the Word, the gospel, to save ,set free,open eyes..... No, I did not become Protetsant then ,but when I did,it was not a particular church that saved me ,it was not going thru some ritual or a tradition that grabbed me,it was not a priest or church leader that i liked but an average rank and file believer that said "the bible says...". ( "..it pleased God that by the foolishnes of preaching to save them that believe." Cor 1;21 ) I would like to discuss your last question as to how to rightly interpet scripture next time please.
David,
I will have to comment on your last post later... In the meantime, I never got a response to the following:
"Pope Nicholas in 858 made a decree that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus as well as Alexander 3 in 1159 and Pope Innocent 3 in 1243."
Umm... source? You can't just throw statements out there without backing them up with a source. What decrees are you referring to?
Hello again. Thank-you for letting me state last time that scriptures trumps all,it can be our foundation ,our "constitution" for discussion of any topic. Now you rightly ask whose interpetation is correct? It is a great and revealing question. It presupposes that indeed truth is absolute,with its roots going back to Genesis.It also presupposes that we can be wrong.God absolutely says it (His Word) and a voice then says, "did He really say that?" (so said the serpent to Eve). Cain and Abel both hear the same word and instruction from God,yet one still does wrong.Hebrews 11;4 suggests Abel heard the Word and believed and Cain did not (not good soil or heart). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor 14:33),nor does He tempt us.It seems that after the fall being right did not come naturally . On one hand we can turn away from truth and turn to fables (Santa Claus or the Easter bunny or.... 2nd Tim 4:4) or we can be perfect in and by the Word (Matt5:48). So how do we become like Abel? The Spirit bears witness of three things: our sin, His righteousness, and judgement to come, hopefully leading us to fear God and open the door to all understanding. Bottom line is we don't have it by ourselves ,we are not born with it.The bible says to lean not on your own understanding but trust in the Lord. He must give us the right new heart, and faith in His word, and the ability to rightly divide it .It is His free gift.It is an individual thing between you and the Lord,yet it is the same narrow gate for all to enter in. Truth must be divinely revealed. When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus said, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but the Father which is in Heaven".(Matt 16:17) But you have an unction from the Holy One ,and know all things".(1 John 2:20) Does your authority come from yourself ,or what others tell you ,or from a church, or from signs and wonders? Or does it come from God himself, .whom will teach you and lead you in all things (the Holy Spirit ministering to you)? The early Church spread like wildfire amidst persecution and horrible death because of the latter. In the end God leaves it for you to decide and judge for yourself (individual conscience) wether you are in the right or wrong,wether you are leaning on your own "stuff" or trusting in Him and bearing witness of Him. Free will, the tares in with the wheat. So I guess God decides what is right and we must discern if we are with God on it..that is why I earlier said we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling(PHIL 2:12),corporately and humbly. It is His Spirit in us that discerns things.Indeed we must be be born again to rightly divide the Word. It is not of ouselves lest any man should boast,or lord it over us(there is only one Lord). I would like to address your spirited points about Luther and popes etc. next time please. Thanks. Allelulia
David,
Hmm... where to begin?
"When did Jesus ever do anything that was not scriptural? When was the Fathers' will for Jesus ever not scriptural?...
"Luke 4:4 tells us that we are to live by every word of God, every 'jot and tittle'".
I'm not exactly sure how this makes a case for sola scriptura... Jesus wasn't bound by the confines of Scripture, which at the time, would have only been the Old Testament anyway. Additionally, doesn't it seem strange that everything the Almighty God wants us to know is contained fully and completely in one volume of books, many of which are actually letters of correction to the early church? John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." If we are to hold to EVERY jot and tittle of the word of God, that's going to have to include the numerous things Jesus said that were NOT written down! Using the Bible alone, that is impossible!
1 Cor 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
1 Cor 15:1-2
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
2 Thess 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Tim 2:2
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Every one of these verses tell us that the gospel was spread by word of mouth and through traditions. The early church was called to hold fast to the traditions, by WORD OF MOUTH and by letter! The early church relied on the spoken word in order to spread the gospel. And, since there were many things that were not written, it only follows that we must have some traditions outside of Scripture that tells us something about who God is... something that helps bring the written word to life in a fuller fashion! Not to mention, without tradition, there are many things we cannot know. For example, how would we know which books were the inspired word of God that should be included in the Bible to begin with? How do we know that Mark wrote Mark? Scripture itself doesn't say so!
"No, I did not become Protetsant then ,but when I did,it was not a particular church that saved me ,it was not going thru some ritual or a tradition that grabbed me,it was not a priest or church leader that i liked but an average rank and file believer that
"No, I did not become Protetsant then ,but when I did,it was not a particular church that saved me ,it was not going thru some ritual or a tradition that grabbed me,it was not a priest or church leader that i liked but an average rank and file believer that said "the bible says..."
David, it seems you missed something when you were a Catholic. Did you miss the readings of Scripture? Did you miss Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23), proclaiming in the very center of the Church what Christ did for you? Did you miss all the parts of Mass that come straight from Scripture itself?
Greeting
Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)
People: And also with you.
Penitential Rite
All: I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. (Jas. 5:16) In my thoughts and in my words, (Rom. 12:16) In what I have done and what I have failed to do; (Jas 3:6) and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the angel and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. (1 Thess 5:25)
Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4) Christ have mercy. (1 Tim 1:2) Lord have mercy.
Gloria
All: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. (Luke 2:14)
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Rev 19:6)
we worship you, (Rev. 22:9) we give you thanks, (Eph. 5:20)
we praise you for your glory. (Rev 7:12)
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, (2 John 3)
Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us; (John 1:29)
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. (Rom 8:34)
For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)
You alone are Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:32)
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. (John 14:26)
For the Scripture references to the FULL mass (not including the FOUR readings of Scripture included in the mass that brings us through almost the entire Bible in THREE years) see: Scripture in Mass
ALL THAT is in just the first few minutes of mass! Every bit of it straight from Scripture! There is no church that proclaims more "the bible says.... " than the Catholic Church in the mass! Sadly, you just missed it!
The Catholic Church teaches that justification is from Christ alone and is a free gift (CCC 1996). However, Christ uses his Church, which he himself established (Mt 16:1 8-19) as a means to draw people into his saving grace. The Church is the body of Christ (Col 1:1 8) and therefore necessary. With Christ as the HEAD, the body cannot b
With Christ as the HEAD, the body cannot be separated from the head (1 Cor 12:20-27). It is the CHURCH which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)... not the Bible.
"The bible says to lean not on your own understanding but trust in the Lord...Truth must be divinely revealed... Does your authority come from yourself ,or what others tell you ,or from a church, or from signs and wonders? Or does it come from God himself, .whom will teach you and lead you in all things (the Holy Spirit ministering to you)?...Indeed we must be be born again to rightly divide the Word."
So, tell me, if we are not to lean on our OWN understanding, and being born again we have the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things and rightly divide the Word... How is it that there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all using the Bible as their sole rule of faith? How do we know which denomination has it right? Who has it wrong? By what authority is one pastor able to claim, "We teach the absolute truth!" when another pastor makes the same claim, yet opposes him on issues like divorce and remarriage, abortion, homosexuality, war and peace, baptism, the significance of holy communion, etc.??
Indeed the Bible, being the inspired and inerrant Word of God, is essential. But, by itself, without some outside authority to determine how it should be interpreted, all we have is a bunch of people pushing their fallible, non-authoritative interpretation on everyone else. So, who has the authority to bind and loose? (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Which church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? When we are to take matters TO THE CHURCH, which church do we go to with the authority to decide? (Matthew 18:17)
hello again. just a quick comment. You did not mention one specific instance when Jesus did something contrary to scripture. What prophecy did he not fullfill? Which law did he really break? So how was He not bound to the confines of Scriture? HOW ?(obviously only the Old Testament- you make it sound like it's not that much). Then you bring up the New Testament which is irrelevant to the point-because as you suggest, was not written yet). It was misapplied scripture, supreme church leaders some bad customs and traditions .and God,s own united people and religion that Jesus had to continually correct and debate and eventually helped put Him on the cross. What remained unchanged and pure in all the above mess was the Word and His Spirit working in the hearts of men. Against this the gates of hell shall not prevail. Alleluia !
Well David, I never asserted that Jesus ever did anything contrary to Scripture, so I didn't even look for one since Jesus wouldn't contradict his own inspired Word anyway. I guess I don't see your point in trying to get me to find such an instance.
Matt 16:18-19 tells us that the gates of hell will not prevail against his CHURCH.
The problem with modern Christianity is that we have multiple denominations, all using the same Bible, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit... yet teaching opposing doctrines! By what authority are they held accountable? How are we to know which denomination has it right? The Bible doesn't tell us which denomination we are to follow. It simply says Christ established a church with authority. Where is THAT church, David?
Hello again. I do not think it strange that GOD put in One Book everything essential THAT HE WANTS US TO KNOW. Are there others on par with the Bible? Did Jesus have to read other books? He never once quotes the Talmud (commentaries by rabbis etc..their authority figures like todays' bishops or popes).If he did it was to correct them (remember the "you have heard it said(custom)...but I tell you(real meaning) of Matt.5 ? I sense we both reverance the scriptures and Mary but you reverance Mary more than I, and I reverance the scriptures more than you.Is that fair to say?
hello again I understand Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded in the bible.The inference by John is that they were similar in nature to what WAS recorded.They would not contradict or change the outcome or change one instruction or docrtrine.etc. If God used 4 gospel writers without contradiction He could have just as easily used 5 or 10 ,right? How does that open the door for speculation as to what or whom has authority?. So because we don't know everything He said , or he didn't make the Book bigger, we must now also rely on tradition or a leaders or the church to fill in the blanks, or assume equal authority? I do not get that from this scripture."Jot and title" refers to what Was written. So it is possible to have SCIPTURE as our authority,to judge our church ,traditions leaders. 2nd Tim 3;16 still stands, "All scripture is inspired by God ...for correction ,reproof, instruction...."Yes you need fellow believers -the Church, and leaders and teachers and deacons and you will have traditions but they must be built upon the Rock, the chief corner stone,the Word, Jesus himself. All else is hay and stubble.
"I sense we both reverance the scriptures and Mary but you reverance Mary more than I, and I reverance the scriptures more than you.Is that fair to say?"
As far as asserting that you reverence Scripture more than I, it's actually not fair, and it's not accurate. There is nothing the Catholic Church teaches that isn't backed either implicitly or explicitly in Scripture. Nothing. I've already proven to you that the Catholic Church is Bible-based in the mass and by using Scripture to back up the Church's viewpoints. I love and reverence the Scriptures more as a Catholic than I did in all my years as as a Protestant because I no longer have to explain away verses that contradict the man-made traditions of sola fide and sola scriptura.
You, however, have continued to ignore my questions, ignored the verses I've cited for the Catholic position, and insulted me by trying to claim that I don't reverence the Scriptures as much as you do.
So, I have to ask, what makes your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine? What makes your church more Bible-centered than mine?
If God put everything essential that he wants us to know in the Bible, then please tell me where in the Bible (book, chapter, and verse) we have the list of inspired books that were to be included?
Also, you have still failed to quote the popes' decrees which claim that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. (Or is it really that you have no idea?)
"So it is possible to have SCIPTURE as our authority,to judge our church ,traditions leaders."
How can something written be a judge when it cannot "decide"? If Scripture is the final authority, why doesn't Scripture itself tell us to "take it to the Bible" instead of to the Church? Why does Scripture itself tell us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth and not Scripture?
"All scripture is inspired by God ...for correction ,reproof, instruction...."
Catholics AGREE! But this verse doesn't say Scripture ALONE. Nor does it negate the idea that something else is not also profitable for correction, reproof and instruction...
"Yes you need fellow believers -the Church, and leaders and teachers and deacons and you will have traditions but they must be built upon the Rock, the chief corner stone,the Word, Jesus himself."
Catholic traditions ARE built on Jesus Christ and his Word in Scripture. They are traditions that have been taught and understood for 2000 years and they originated with Christ and the apostles!
did you know Jehovas Witness's look at all Christendom as false, and that they are the only true church as evidenced by their world wide unity of faith ,doctrine ,tradition and leadership heirarchy? Are those the right benchmarks for the true church? Is not bleeding, having a fever, coughing , and other apparent maladies part of a healthy human body ? When I was on a school board, we had two factions (one was tax- payer leaning the other administration)and of course the admin faction would push for "unity,that division looked "bad". Yet studies from Princeton University showed that divided boards were actually better and healthier for everyone involved in the log run.So what looked like division was actually cooperation from a different perspective.
Well, we're not talking about a school board here. We are talking about the Church established by Christ. To say that division is GOOD is anti-Biblical:
Romans 16:17
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought
Eph 4:3-6
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Phil 2:2
then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.
And I can name SEVERAL more like these...
Additionally, I WANT to belong to a church that makes the claim to be the one true church because I want to belong to the ONE church that Christ established. I don't want to belong to any church that doesn't claim it to be the fullness of truth that Christ intended because I believe that Christ WANTS us to have the fullness of truth... Not half-truths, not negotiated truths, not relative truths... but THE truth and I believe that He gave us the means to know that truth - 100%. The evidence of what makes one a part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH is: Is it ONE? Is it HOLY? Is it catholic (universal)? And is it APOSTOLIC? If it isn't, then it simply cannot be the church that Christ established because these are the things he called his church to!
Catholics do NOT view all of Christendom as false. They acknowledge that all religions contain some truth, some closer to what is true than others, of course. So, to implicitly compare us with the JWs who don't even believe in the divinity of Christ is absurd.
How can scripture be a judge? Is it not a two- edged sword ,able to cut asunder seperating joint from marrow (paraphrase-hey it's late ) it judged my sinful nature. Why can it not judge my action or anyone elses? Yes, you can study scriptures, but I'd rather listen to a man who has let scriptures study him/her.IF YOU TAKE IT TO THE BIBLE, YOU ARE THE CHURCH.It is not one or the other. You can not seperate the two. Can you seperate Jesus and the Word ?
I don't believe it's Scripture which judges your sinful nature. Rather it points it out to you. But, ultimately, a being with intellect must be a judge. This is like saying the Constitution is the JUDGE of law... but, in reality, a person must decide how the Constitution is to be interpreted and judge accordingly. Scripture cannot be a judge! I can only be a guideline for judging!
Please tell me where in the Bible it says that if you take it to the Bible, you ARE the church?
Also, Jesus IS the Word. AND Jesus is the HEAD of the BODY, which is the Church. I never said we should separate the church, or Jesus, from Scripture. Scripture is essential to a life of abundant and growing faith.
In fact, the Catholic Church teaches, "The Church "forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ' (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles." (CCC 2653)
Does this sound like a faith that places little importance on Scripture?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
just read your division rebuttal. you misconstrued the princeton study. what you think division is may not be,and what you think unity is may not be to someone elses perspective. .there was division in the early church.Why else was there so much exhorting for unity. I know many churches that are ONE,HOLY UNIVERSAL,APOSOLIC.All around the world Assembly of God churches are united in truth .holines etc ,with themselves .Lutherans all around the world the same ,with themselves .Greek orthodox ,russian orthodox, episcopals all have unity holiness ,universal ,apostolic with themselves.Using you qualifications a seeking Hindu or Muslim lumps us (that's Roman Catholic too) all together as "Christian".Your logic fails the test of different perspectives....but I certainly think I understand your perspective,more and more as u share
"you misconstrued the princeton study. what you think division is may not be,and what you think unity is may not be to someone elses perspective."
This is relativism! Tell me, where in Christianity is division NOT really division? Give me an example of something that SEEMS divisive but that might actually be cooperation? Tell me how it's acceptable for one sect of Christianity to believe, for example, that baptism is merely a symbol, while others hold that baptism is regenerative? Is this not really division but just someone's incorrect perception that it's division? With all due respect, that seems a bit illogical... and, in my opinion, mocks the actual Word of God that calls us to be "like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose"!
"there was division in the early church.Why else was there so much exhorting for unity"
There were people who TRIED to divide the early church. The difference between then and now is that now, when one does not agree, they go off and start their own church and find people who agree with them. But the early church defended the truth with their authority and if one disagreed, more often than not, they submitted to the authority of the Church in the end. The division did not fall WITHIN the church, but outside, while the church maintained it's long-held doctrines and refused to waiver! A perfect example of this is the issue of contraception. Prior to 1930 ALL Christian denominations considered the use of it immoral and gravely sinful. Only the Catholic Church still stands firm in this today.
"I know many churches that are ONE,HOLY UNIVERSAL,APOSOLIC."
Assembly of God churches DO not have apostolic succession... They have absolutely NO tracing back to the time of the apostles. Their denomination started in 1914. Lutheran pastors cannot trace their roots to the apostles either. Their church started in 1517 and they have also divided among themselves into different synods. The Orthodox churches are the exception and are so recognized by the Catholic Church as having valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. But they split from the Catholic Church in 1054... and we've been working to reunite with them ever since.
The Catholic Church ALONE was started in 33 AD by Jesus Christ himself. It is a secular fact that cannot be denied. Our bishops can trace their succession to the apostles! Did the Almighty God start a church that managed to fail within the first few centuries? Did he not know what he was doing or who he entrusted his Church to? Did you know that this is EXACTLY what Mormons use as the basis for their religion? Without total apostasy of the early church, their entire religion falls apart at the seems.
Why do you trust the Catholic Church when it comes to their decision on what to include in the canon of Scripture, a task that would have required the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but cannot believe that the Holy Spirit would ALSO guide that same Church in other areas of faith and morals for the next 1600 years? If the Catholic Church were truly corrupt, it would have faded away centuries ago, just like all the heresies that sprang up around her which she tirelessly worked to refute and correct and which eventually faded into the background of history.
sorry about the "insult",but didn't I insult myself by saying you love Mary more? I have not ignored your questions,,just haven't answered yet because we keep adding more new dialogue ,and I think you've overlooked a couple of mine..it's o.k what traditions are specifically recorded in scriptue that the apostles told us to keep. I can not accept an implied premise that because we do them today,and we are apostolic ,they must have done them back 2000 years ago(even though they were not recorded?), and how could He let His Church go astray,how could we be prevailed against? did not the jewish church stray,was God unfaithful to them? Does not Paul warns us not to think we are better than they. Did not most of the 7 Revelation church's begin to stray and some did not repent even after the "letter",the church dissappeared there candlestick was taken away. Are you baptist with the "once saved always saved" except "once God's church always God's church" ? You can lose your candlestick,it could be given to another (think jews),and God's plan prevails thru another. So back to traditions and the apostles .We agree on baptism,communion,marriage ,meeting on the first day of the week.excomunicating.. I do not see celibacy in the clergy,prayer to saints, Mary ascending ,or being declared sinless or transubstantiation(monstrance), or calling leaders father ,much less pope or even of Peter being infallible top dog in arbritration,of his being the final word ,praying for the dead, purgatory, lighting candles and incense,indulgences,monasticism,bodily punishment as penance,confessing only to priests last rites,repetitiuos prayers ,church membership,inquisitions (Torquemada would have known what to do with those 1st century gnostics. That is one way to keep unity. I am sorry, that was nasty of me to bring up .It is not for you but for my spanish ancestors. I would have been burned at the stake. C. S. Lewis wrote, "The unhistorical,without knowing it,are usually enslaved to a fairly recent past" that is to say our image of the pope is shaped by our most recent popes. No church is perfect .I do not put my hope in a denomination (of which catholicism is just one, yes maybe the biggest, maybe the oldest),but they may fail(and have).Hell has prevailed against them from time to time. Again,as a saint approached the pearly gates,he looked up and saw St.Peter and asked ,"hey ,you have any Lutherans up there? Peter answeresd ,"No". "Do you have any catholics up there ?" Again St. Peter said,
the Church is perfect or will be. It is not subject to denominations or it's heirarchy. It is a spiritual institution or kingdom here on earth. Man is imperfect as demonsterated in divisions and denominations.If we exalt our denomination we are carnal(rememeber the early church boasting I am of peter or I am of paul ? We both have built on the foundations laid down by the early church (no denomination in this paradigm please). We both will be accountable to God for what we build on it .Is wood ,hay stuubble? (I am sure some of mine is )or is it gold and silver ?(I am sure some of Him in me is).
"sorry about the "insult",but didn't I insult myself by saying you love Mary more?"
You are free to say what you want about your own feelings about Mary, Scripture or anything else. I simply find it unacceptable for you to assume that I love Scripture LESS than you do. As for Mary, I honor her more than I did as a Protestant because I now see her role in salvation history with a broader perspective. God, after all, chose her above all others, to bring Him into the world. That says something! How you feel about her in comparison is not for me to judge.
"I have not ignored your questions,,just haven't answered yet because we keep adding more new dialogue ,and I think you've overlooked a couple of mine"
Well by all means, then, let's not add any more dialogue. Please answer my questions. I wasn't aware that I had missed any of your questions as I thought I'd responded to them as you gave them. Can you please let me know which ones I haven't answered? (With the exception of the new ones is your last comments, since we should answer the previous questions before moving forward. )
hello again some new dialogue. " I am the vine, you are the branches,he that abideth in me and I in him shall bear fruit" (john15). I see this for ANY individual, who is more than "apostolic", but goes back to Adam, Abel and Abraham(AAA), who by faith ,has a relationship with the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. This is a call to abide in Him the Vine ,Not a church or denomination.The "church" is the vine and All the branches ,no two looking alike. His Word cleans us, purges and prunes us.Jesus is the husband men ,NOT any denomination.The gospel ,is a call to the vine ,not to a particular church. The apostles struggled with this also when they "saw one casting out devils in thy name,and he followed us not.and we forbad him because he followed US not." Jesus had to correct the apostles fom being "clicky". He also corrected Peter when he improperly inquired about Johns' future (what is that to you?).....So I believe there are many Roman Catholics who have been and are saved,but NOT because they are Roman Catholic .I believe there are some baptists ,lutherans etc. who are saved ,but not because they are baptists or lutheran etc. Salvation is a free gift to those who ask and call out to Him. There is no other name given(NOT protestant or roman catholic catholic) to be saved by .Alleluia! Right?
No comment on new dialogue until you answer my previous questions, David. You said yourself you're not answering due to new dialogue, but you're the one creating it. Can you not answer my questions?
Still trying to find where the 3 popes may have said Mary was not ever virgin. Saw it somewhere on the internet, can't find it again. Did find something interesting though. As stated ealier some of this debate goes back to thinking that celibacy is better than marriage. You said something like God kept Mary pure(virgin, as if sex in marriage would not have been as pure).I saw some quotes (on the internet) of St. Ambrose that marriage is a crime against..and Tertulian said it is an obscene,moral crime and St. Augustine said marriage is a sin. Granted they wanted to devote ALL there time to the God's work, that Christ could return soon.Still I am shocked to see those statements.Have you read that before ? I believe the website to be accurate. Anyways, Tim 4;1-5 "Now the Spirit speaks expressly in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils:speaking lies in hypocrisy,having there conscience seared with a hot iron,FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to OBSTAIN FROM MEATS, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which BELIEVE and KNOW the TRUTH. I am NOT saying the above saints apostasized but I would strongly disagree with there statements on marriage. Marriage is as pure as celibacy.Billy Graham did great work for God being fully married ,kid's and all. Mother Theresa did great work for God being celibate.Early Catholic priests did great work for God being married ,as did celibate priests later, being celibate. Mary can be just as honored ,and pure (of heart), being virgin or married with children. We are free in Christ no longer Jew or gentile ,free or slave,all have the opportunity to please God by faith without respect to your station in life,including wether you are married or single .If all that you say about Mary is true, there is honor and purity there .If all that I say about Mary is true ,there is honor and purity there also.
hello again. I was just thinking about being 'Apostolic' .You may claim to have apostolic succesion because YOU say so, but it has been contested at every turn. That is part of secular history .But my point that I think is more important ,and I hope you would agree, is to BE apostolic.Their unity came by preaching the simple gospel message.They were not Roman Catholic,they were catholic only.Jerusalem church was not better than Antioch or Rome better than the Phillipians etc.,etc.They had no pope(Peter may have been their leader but he was never the final word ,nor did the church call the apostles Father.They did not have to be celibate (they had families),there is no mention of praying to saints or extra veneration of Mary. They were not monastic ,nor did they grant indulgences.They fought off any attempt to ritualize, or box God in how to build HIS Church,HIS kingdom(the Judaisers).There was UNITY in keeping the gospel as simple as possible.The Holy spirit was in charge ,the Head working thru Peter sometimes ,sometimes thru Paul or Steven . EVERY believer could go into the Holy of Holy's ,the middle wall of partition was torn in two ,all believers were priests ,after the order of Melchisidek.They did not have to call on special people to consecrate the bread and wine. Yes, let us both BE Apostolic, and Unified in the simplicity of the gospel ,of being born again ,regenerated ,saved into HIS Kingdom .Anything else is carnal,not of God.Anything else is sewing up the curtain again so, like the old testament, you needed a rabbi for most religiuos functions,with so many rule and regulations and dogmas and divisions ,losing sight of their simple mission,making them either twice the sinners with its burden or full of religious piety and hypocrisy ,so that the drunkard etc. would enter into the kingdom before the so called believer in the one true faith. Yes let us be, by God's grace ,unified and like the apostles and early believers.
"I saw some quotes (on the internet) of St. Ambrose that marriage is a crime against..and Tertulian said it is an obscene,moral crime and St. Augustine said marriage is a sin."
Sources, please... I want to be sure that what you're claiming hasn't been taken out of context, which is typically the case. If you got it from a website, then cite it!
I'm not addressing the marriage/celibacy issue or anything else you've brought up because you are, once again, bringing up further dialogue before you've answered my questions... Here is a general recap of my questions:
Tell me where in the Bible you can find the passage in which Scripture claims to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. By what authority is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine? Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong?
If we are not to lean on our OWN understanding, and being born again we have the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things and rightly divide the Word... How is it that there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all using the Bible as their sole rule of faith? How do we know which denomination has it right? Who has it wrong? By what authority is one pastor able to claim, "We teach the truth!" when another pastor makes the same claim, yet opposes him on issues like divorce and remarriage, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, war and peace, baptism, the significance of holy communion, etc.??
Who has the authority today (given to the apostles) to bind and loose? (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Which church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? When we are to take matters TO THE CHURCH, which church do we go to with the authority to decide? (Matthew 18:17). Where is THAT church?
Please tell me where in the Bible it says that if you take it to the Bible, you ARE the church?
Did the Almighty God start a church that managed to fail within the first few centuries? Did he not know what he was doing or who he entrusted his Church to? Did you know that this is EXACTLY what Mormons use as the basis for their religion? Without total apostasy of the early church, their entire religion falls apart at the seams.
Why do you trust the Catholic Church when it comes to their decision on what to include in the canon of Scripture, a task that would have required the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but cannot believe that the Holy Spirit would ALSO guide that same Church in other areas of faith and morals for the next 1600 years?
hello again I finally found the website that stated the three popes who decred that Mary was not perpetual virgin "abcog.org?mary1.htm". I could not find any collaboration and there was an error on another issue so i would withdraw those statements. I did find a reputable sight that quotes W. Webster in "The Church at Rome..." at "Mary worship by Mary Ann Collins" website in where 2 popes(Gelasius and Hormisdas declare the teaching of the assumption as heretical and Pope Gregory declaring all bishops to be equal, with not one in supreme authority (no pope).
hello again "humanist studies.org/enews/?id=251&article=30" and movingimages.ca/catalogue/history/history.htm have quotes on st. ambrose .I found more sights if you just google the saint and marriage ,crime ,evil. As far as context,I thought the original quote was fair , that celibacy is preferred,better,more spiritual than marriage in service to God .One can not deny the rise of asceticism in the third,fourth century followed by monasticism..I believe the quotes to be accurate ,and one can simply agree or disagree with them.
hello I am surprised by your questions still remaining. I thought I answered them.You are right ,I do believe that scripture is the SOLE rule or authority for us. I gave many instances where Jesus and the early church did also.You never found an instance where Jesus did otherwise.That BECAME tradition ,to "search the scriptures".Yes, I acknowledge your finding scriptures that talk of tradition,but it seems it has the same meaning as in other places where it says to hold on to the WORD, or gospel, "as it was first presented to you." Yes I acknowledge the scripture where the "the house of God,the church of the living God ,the pillar and the ground of truth'. The context is good, moral, Godly BEHAVIOR for deacons and bishops because it is where truth should be found,built upon the WORD ,Jesus, the chief cornerstone ,then the apostles and prophets,then US making up the holy temple.(Eph 2:21) I do not see that as a scripture where his church is the authority. As a matter of fact the danger of that is alluded to by Timothy 3 verses forward where doctrines (turning into traditions),not of God ,like "forbidding to marry "etc.etc.creep into that "church" If proper interpetation of that scripture were acted upon, we would not have a foundation for a lot of bad things that popes and bishops and priests have done(including protestant)thru the ages to the present (please don't ask me to document that,it would be too much to write about). What is that secular saying? nothing corrupts like absolute power? Is there any other denomination that claims such absolute supremacy and power as the Roman Catholic Church ? But with God all things are possible,if we abide in Him, He shall perfect us, the Church (no denomination)
"if you take it to the bible, you are the church' You are right, that is not a scripture. My inference was that there are scriptures, which were shared, that shows the early church "taking it to the bible", that is judging things against the word of God.You can use the bible and still get it wrong(e.g. cults).But for sure if you don't take it to the bible, your chances increase tremendously of getting it wrong.Again HIS BLOOD has broken that middle wall of partion down where we can now ,you and me ,go boldly into his Presence and ,we can HEAR His voice.We have been made the priests.Let us not go backwards.
If we are not to lean on our OWN understanding, and being born again we have the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things and rightly divide the Word... How is it that there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all using the Bible as their sole rule of faith? How do we know which denomination has it right? Who has it wrong? By what authority is one pastor able to claim, "We teach the truth!" when another pastor makes the same claim, yet opposes him on issues like divorce and remarriage, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, war and peace, baptism, the significance of holy communion, etc.??
Wouldn't God want us to be able to know what the truth is instead of floating around guessing and questioning?
The very early church couldn't have taken it to the Bible because there was no Bible until the late 4th century. How did Christianity spread prior to the Bible, especially when so many of the followers were likely illiterate?
By the way, the Catholic Church makes no claim that popes are not also sinners. They are not infallible at all time regarding all matters. Their sins and their personal opinions (when not speaking for the church) do not take away from what the Church teaches and has always taught. I will take a look at your links regarding St. Ambrose and others and comment shortly.
HELLO AGAIN THE CHURCH, AS QUOTED EARLIER, IS ALSO BUILT UPON THE PROPHETS, AS IN OLD TESTAMENT.THE GOSPEL MESSAGE IS THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH.THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PROPECIES ON THAT MATTER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.Again the old testament came about thru the centuries as God so led. Never did the Jews use as an excuse that it was not completed until 400 b.c. and therefore they could develop tradition and doctrine on their own,that contradicted what WAS written.Jesus never criticized the method and timeliness of formulating the old testament.I am sure the Lord employed (and his believers) the same method in keeping in faith with new testament books ,as they were written.The Corinthians could not say "Paul, we are not sure if you are inspired ,even though you say you are, because Revelations has not been written yet. We must wait for all inspired books to be written. Then we will have a council to decide what is inspired and whether we will listen and obey your admonissions". Come on, there is nothing new here. Again "my sheep know my voice." If your congregation got an inspired letter from Paul,the spirit would bear witness to you,to whomever had an ear .Again you could weigh it against all other inspired writings ,Old and whatever New had been written. Peter did not decide or tell Paul that his letters were inspired and that he was thinking about making a New Testament Bible,anymore than some high priest rabbi decided that he would make Proverbs part of old testament canon. Any ways ,you make me stray. The bible simply states that first century christians,congregations ,communities,did regard scripture as authoratative. How did cristianity spread? Again just as it always has ,from Adam to you and me. "Faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by the Word of God". The Word ,wether it be from the person of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit,wether it be verbal,by sign,by writing or fom another person or from a jack ass will not contradict itself ,regenerating the fallen spirit of the person.(Adam had no bible nor did Abraham ,but they had His Word ,His promise ,His prophecy). It is really simple.Yes He used a peculiar people ,a holy nation in the Old Testament as He uses His holy church in the New testament. Only the "church" is not what some think it is ,just as jews ,(not all), misunderstood their holy nation.A discerning heart is a discerning heart wether literate or not. He can still have the Word as his authority. He does not abdicate that discernment to the one who can read. He,the Lord, will hold all accountable to what we did with His Word .We can't play the blame game ,like at the garden of Eden. It is faulty to rely on other "authorities " when God desires direct relationship to his Word . None of this " He said ,she said" ,regardless of whether what they say is right or wrong. I am not guessing or floating around by His grace ?I don't think you are
just a quick note - the gospel has remained constant, never changing from 33 a.d to the present,forming His church .Roman catholicism has Not taught the same thing thru the ages and I believe you know that.(Again, some Roman Catholics are part of that "church "in my first sentence,as are some baptists and lutherans etc.).
hello In jesus day things were similar in that there were many factions with different traditions beliefs ,propbably not as mush as today but the dynamics were probabbly the same.On the whole though there was "Judaism " as today there is "Christianity". In short,there are so many differences,partly because we all have different "soils", levels of faith , of love ,and many souls just are not born again but what is worse is they think they are. Why is there such a diverse opinions within the church ,even the catholic church?Why was the head of our local Planned Parenthood a catholic ,with 12 years of schooling under the church or a school board member who did not want armed forces recruiters on schools because their policy (military policy of dont ask dont tell) on gays from my church. So I would say people are leaning on their understanding ,not totally being led or inspired by the spirit. So you are right that just because a person "says so" is a weak foundation. I would further say that just because a denomination says so ,is also a weak foundation.I know people want to put their faith in their church ,their leaders but the foundation goes deeper. The fact is you will seek and find "your church" based on where you are at spiritually already. So I would rather focus on personal spiritual facts than the church denomination it takes you too. This personal ,divine revelation is the rock,the foundation which nothing can seperate us from,the gates of hell can not prevail.The Lord allows the wheat and the tares to remain side by side. He is bothered by some of the divisions but I think we are sometimes bothered by it more than He would like. Every time I bump into a division or a difference,it forces me back to my rock and He corrects me or strenghtens me or I learn something. No, He is not the author of confusion, yet He is working with lumps of clay ,working all things for good .Could you stand it if Christ liked a couple of denominations and not just your own? Or that he blesses some protestants as much or even more than some catholics? Should I not say that much of the seed and foundation of my faith came from God using things from my Catholic background ? Should I not say that it was protestant teaching that finally birthed me? Should I boast then in catholocism and protestantism ? No, but I should boast of how God worked thru clumps of clay(catholic and protestant) to to be obedient in proclaiming His Word to me...monumental Words that revealed to me my sin ,lack of faith,and judgement to come (which I was not ready for), but also His love and forgiveness and righteousness. Thanks be to God for my catholic mother and that third grade nun and that protestant youth pastor. I am sorry I can not share your enthusiasm for your particular denomination above this divine revelation. "I am the truth,the way ,the life....the door that leads to the Father" Salvation is of the jews (not pharisees or saducees or zionist ), and today His C
and today His church carries the gospel(not a denomination).Jesus said He would bring division, brother against sister ....division over his Word over Himself.It began in the garden of Eden ,""Hath God really said...well what he really meant was". Someone always trying to trump divine revelation (what God told Adam and Eve DIRECTLY).Then there was Cain and Abel ,the Jewish divisions,the early church had divisions,and today 'christians and even catholics have divisions.God allows liberty of conscience ,free will with regard to His Word.Is it not true that as the bible was printed in spoken languages,and bibles began to flood europe that the reformation began.The WORD was the catalyst not Luther.It is better to allow personal conscience and free will with its unfortunate dividions than to have unity by heirarchal force (both protatant or catholic by popes or kings). Again the bigger issue than getting it right (which denomination)is getting it right from Him, DIRECTLY. "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you ,but the Father which is in heaven".
Imagine this...
You're driving home from work next Monday after a long day. You tune in your radio. You hear a blurb about a little village in India where some villagers have died suddenly, strangely, of a flu that has never been seen before. It's not influenza, but three or four people are dead, and it's kind of interesting, and they are sending some doctors over there to investigate it. You don't think much about it, but coming home from church on Sunday you hear another radio spot. Only they say it's, not three villagers, it's 30,000 villagers in the back hills of this particular area of India, and it's on TV that night. CNN runs a little blurb: people are heading there from the disease center in Atlanta because this disease strain has never been seen before.
By Monday morning when you get up, it's the lead story. It's not just India; it's Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and before you know it, you're hearing this story everywhere, and they have now coined it as "the mystery flu." The President has made some comment that he and his family are praying and hoping that all will go well over there. But everyone is wondering, "How are we going to contain it?"
That's when the President of France makes an announcement that shocks Europe. He is closing their borders. No flights from India, Pakistan, or any of the countries where this thing has been seen. And that's why that night you are watching a little bit of CNN before going to bed. Your jaw hits your chest when a weeping woman is translated in English from a French news program. There's a man lying in a hospital in Paris, dying of the mystery flu. It has come to Europe.
Panic strikes. As best they can tell, after contracting the disease, you have it for a week before you even know it. Then you have four days of unbelievable symptoms. And then you die. Britain closes its borders, but it's too late. South Hampton, Liverpool, North Hampton, and it's Tuesday morning when the President of the United States makes the following announcement: "Due to a national-security risk, all flights to and from Europe and Asia have been canceled. If your loved ones are overseas, I'm sorry. They cannot come back until we find a cure for this thing."
Within four days, our nation has been plunged into an unbelievable fear. People are wondering, "What if it comes to this country?" And preachers on Tuesday are saying it's the scourge of God. It's Wednesday night, and you are at a church prayer meeting when somebody runs in from the parking lot and yells, "Turn on a radio, turn on a radio!" And while everyone in church listens to a little transistor radio with a microphone stuck up to it, the announcement is made. Two women are lying, in a Long Island hospital, dying from the mystery flu. Within hours it seems, the disease envelopes the country.
People are working around the clock, trying to find an antidote. Nothing is working. California, Oregon, Arizona, Florida, Massachuse
hello again As you can see I am trying to answer more of you questions. I will acknowledge your rational of why would God use a church for the formation of cannon and not continue with her. How do know that God isn't guiding that church ,but thru the likes of someone like Luther,or other protestants,or even by us blogging here? I know my mother was jealous maybe even indignant that I could find something more, even spiritual birth ,outside the catholic church. Maybe it's like Paul said ,that this is the time of the gentiles ,in part to provoke the Jews to jealousy. Did not God guide Israel for 1600 years? Is He guiding her today as then? Yet God keeps his promises. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Are not Jews being saved today and believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Are not many catholics saved today but being birthed in other denominations (40% of my "protstant" church were raised catholic).Did not Paul warn us not be haughty ,thinking we are better than the Jews,that we could be cut off the vine too? Does not Revelations say that a church could lose its candlestick (annointing or guidance as you say)? Protestants should not be haughty either, thinking they are beter than catholics. As I stated earlier, I am grateful to the seeds catholics placed in my life. We are all grateful that the early church was faithful in the New Testament formation. Another discussion would be was that church Roman Catholic ,as it is today?
hello again Most historians seem to believe that New Testament cannon was determined way before the council of carthage 397 .The council ratified what was alredy in existance. Athanius (300 a.d.) and Origen had named 27 books for example.Constantine ordered bibles to be put together by Eusubius and he had the 27 books.No council or church heiarchy was needed. There was a consensus amongst the churches of different cities as to what was cannon. Many paid with there lives for being found with N.T. scripture(cannon was serious business ,purified by fire). Many books were accepted almost immediately of being written as worthy to be added to the old testament. Three writers ,independently said they were inspired and were to be read in the churches..The church was indeed universal and catholic ,not Roman. The only division was geographic. They were city churches unified by one message divinely revealed by the Spirit to its members .The leaders were servants ,they had no need to be forceful,of one city church ruling over another. To make a long story short ,I do not believe it was the Roman Catholic church as we know it today that gave us cannon.As a denomination they did ratify or agree with existing cannon.I am also grateful they did much to preserve and make copies of scripture. I feel there were no denominations back then and the church today that boasts the least or relies the least of and on its' "denomination" is most like the early church. I feel a direct kinship to the early believers. It seems sacriligious to attach any denominational claim to them. Next time I would like to discuss why catholics accept some books today that were rejected back then.
Hello again If the Catholic Church was inspired to ratify the New Testament why did they later build doctrines and traditions based on books that did not make the New Testament cut? Not only did they not make the cut they were condemned as forgeries and heretical by Rome itself. One forgery is the gospel of Peter, which states that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. Early popes found this book HERRETICAL(Gelasian). The Passing of Mary is another condemned book which deals with the assumption of Mary. Again these books were condemned as forgeries and heretical. The Pope had to issue a decree against them because they were creeping into the church >apparently a little leaven did spoil the whole lump. The decree was not heeded,the Mariologists were persistent .I liken it to abortion proponents. It did not begin with Roe vs. wade 1974 but decades earlier.There was a movement for legal abortion,they kept pushing and pushing for it ,influencing educators, the media ,the entertainment world . With Mary it took 2000 years to culminate with the papal decree of her assumption in 1950. And why do I feel it ain't over yet.She is a slow but ever rising star. Anyways, I digress from my main point. The early church rejected spurious books and ratified the inspired books .The early church was persecuted ,was not political(not a state religion) , not denominational, not ruled by Rome and had a loose heirarchy. The Spirit seemed to be guiding her church,and as you say to the point of ratifying our cannon. So what happened that allowed these heretical books to get a foothold and grow? Was it less reliance on the Spirit and more on the state? Was it heirarchy,carnal competing with other city church's(the five patriarchal churches -Rome Jerusalem Antioch,Alexandria,Constatinople) The loss of persecution, which helped purify the church? Well, we agree on one thing .The Holy Spirit guided the formation of our beloved scriptures. Allelulia ! Oh, a good site was "christiantruth.com/assumption"
Hello again As far as the Mormons,you are right that they rely heavily on church apostasy. "farms.byu.edu/publications/books"was a very revealing sight .From your point of view of what the "church" is, you must defend Roman Catholicism". But if the "church" is spiritual,made up of believers,not dependent on heirarchy or denomination but on the Spirit,no defense id needed. Mormons admit that there is "no reason to conclude that there would be no saints or righteous followers of Christ during the period of apostasy .....but the institution would be lost". The statement to me is contradictory and shows a fundamental difference on just what is the "church". Mormons actually take your view that the church is foremost institutional ,it's a heirarchy . That is why they must first illegitmize the current church institution to legitimize their own church. To me, if you have righteous believers ,you have a CHURCH. As Paul states there is a Jew( in name only) and then there is a Jew (by faith). There was always a remnant that remained faithful to carry the Word, the Promise,the true Israel. So it is with His church,yesterday and today ,no denomination to defend. There website confirms that there were divisions fom the beginning of the church,but the Lord is faithful ,His truth marches on,down thru the centuries, the wheat with the tares, until His return. Alleluia!P.S. thank you. I learned a litle more about the Mormons,and us.
I just have one comment for David regarding the authority of the Bible. Could you site in Scripture where it tells us which books belong in the Bible? Could you tell us which books belong in the Bible versus ones that don't (i.e. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, the Gnostic Gospel of Judas?). How did the Bible come to be? Certainly not out of thin air. How you determine what is inspired by God?
hello david you are quite right ,there is no verse that tells us " these are the books of the bible..." . Wouldn't that have been nice ,or would it have ? There is an answer to your question, else why would it have been written, "all scripture is profitable..." if we didn't have the means to determine what scripture is. The planned "dilemma" is as old as the Garden with "hath God really said..." Just as Satan knew what God really did say ,you know what books constitute the bible,the ones that are in there .Some of my above comments address how they came to be (certainly before any big council). Other books have been rejected as coming from the same questioner at the Garden,and rightly denounced by early leaders, even popes. With God all things are possible, My sheep know my voice, broad is the path that leads to error , narrow is the gate that leads to truth. Look ,if you want to believe in other books,you may (free will),but that is just the beginning of different "gospels" one could choose. And that is just how the Lord will have it ,until His return. Alleluia
dave just a footnote,which may aid some in receiving faith in "The Bible". Jesus quoted the old testament often as authoritative, and not once did He find fault with ,The Bible. Yet there were more books ,more authors, more time span between writings in the old testament.I don't think he ever spent time quoting other books.He never corrected scripture but illustrated it's perfectness.
This is my rebuttal to your footnote:
1. "Jesus quoted the old testament often as authoritative, and not once did He find fault with ,The Bible [the Talmud]?"
I beg to differ. Take, for example, the following passage from Matthew 5:38-39:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
You may be familiar with the meaning behind "An eye for an eye" which basically is reciprocated justice or compensation. Logically, this seems fair and is reflected within our legal system, right? For example, I harm you, then your natural inclination is to seek retribution.
However, Jesus tells instructs us to turn the other cheek, or, in essence, forgive our wrong doers. Now, would you be so kind as to demonstrate how Jesus' teaching does not conflict with the Talmud. Clearly, we can see that Jesus does not agree with an idea from the Talmud.
David,
You did not answer by what criterion were the books selected. You used 2 Tim. 3:16 as your defense, but I ask you these questions:
1. If all scripture is profitable or exclusive (thus authority), then aren't the Deuterocanonicals books such as the book of Enoch (which fills gaps within Genesis), the book of Sirach and the book of Wisdom considered the Word of God? The very same books that the Protestant Reformation rejected? You see, the problem here is that it says "All Scripture" and not "All Scripture within the collection of books you are using is profitable." Otherwise, I can assemble my own Bible and include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas and so on and so forth. And if we leave these books out, then are we saying that not "all Scripture" is exclusive? The question is, by what authority and the Bible itself does not claim that it is the authority.
2. In the verse prior, we read the following:
And that from a child [Timothy] thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The problem that this presents is that Paul is referring to the OT when he mentions the holy scriptures. The NT hadn't been compiled during that time. If we take if from biblical context, we can deduce that only the OT is holy scripture and faith in Jesus provides salvation. Am I right? Paul didn't say the holy scriptures and those to come.
Furthermore,this proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament. I don't think you would agree, right?
3. Let's explore the meaning of "profitable" in 2 Tim. 3:16. Most of the NT was in Greek, so when we look it up we find that the word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.
4. Let's look at Acts 15:1-14 to disprove Sola Scriptura. To summarize, Peter resolves a doctrinal dilemma regarding circumcision for gentiles in order for salvation (according to the law of Moses and the covenant given to Abraham from God). Peter does not cite scripture at all and declares that through Jesus we are saved.
4. As we see in the following passages: John 20:30; 21:25 that many of the miracles or works that Jesus performed were not record. So, what should we make of them? Should they be considered somehow even thought they aren't mentioned in the Bible. If we do observe them, would that not go against Sola Scriptura?
5. If the theory of Sola Scriptura were sound, then why have so many denominational churches claiming they have the truth? If Scripture were truly infallible, wouldn't it have one interpretation instead of having people saying "I don't like that passage, therefore I shall interpret it differently to suit my needs."
hello david- you said a lot-good. It deserves some time but I only have a little right know . Just wondering, have you read all our long discussion (between Amber and myself? )on this topic? You actualy state my point that with "you have heard it said" where the church ,the jews ,the religious leaders got it wrong(with the eye for the eye ).The institution and the people got it wrong and focused on "justice". Jesus never denied that an eye for an eye WAS justice,just as the stoning of the woman caught in adultery would have been JUST. This is the law. You realy bring up a phariseeical view that He came to do away with the law which as you know He did not.(Torah ,not Talmud,which is a collection of rabbi discussions).As you know ,He was needfully illustrating another old testament truth that God delights in mercy even grace.So indeed eye for eye is o.k. ,mercy is even better. be ye perfect as the Father is perfect .This is what I meant in my last blog that Jesus showed scripture ,Old Testament to be perfect. Did not Jacob turn the other cheek when he dug well after well peacefully even as they were taken away,one after another .Did he not turn the other cheek and work another 7 years ,on top of the first seven to mary Rachel? So I respectfully submit He agreed with the Torah .He disagreed with the established focus on the law and justice without mercy and grace.That IS THE GOOD NEWS.I will get back to you your other section (but Amber and I did discuss bible formation in some detail)
Dear Amber,
It is sad how people take verse OUT of context to try and prove something. Either you believe the WHOLE Bible as God's Holy Word and accept it in it's entirety or...you don't. Mary was NOT a "Perpetual Virgin"...that is an oxymoron in of itself!
Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I do not believe the 'Catholic teaching'.
Mary did have more than one child, but Jesus was the only one that she concieved as a 'Virgin' through the Holy Spirit. The rest of her children were concieved through a sinful man, just as she was a sinful woman. Just exactly where in the Bible does it say that Mary was a Blessed Virgin AFTER she gave birth?
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."
In Christ's Love,
Jane
Jane,
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps you didn't read through the other comments where I thoroughly answered your question.
Indeed, one must believe the WHOLE Bible in context. We can sit here forever pointing fingers about how you don't or I don't do so... but it's not productive. If you'd like to provide Biblical or historical references for your point, go for it, but to come here and TELL me that I'm wrong is mere mudslinging and unconvincing.
As for Mary's perpetual virginity... all the fathers of protestantism held this belief. It is only within the last two hundred years or so that Christian denominations have denied this fact believed by centuries of Christianity all the way back to the time of Christ. Based on what I've already stated in earlier comments, I make it clear that the Bible can and does support this as well. God Almighty can do whatever He wants, including protecting Mary from the stain of original sin! Why do you try to put limits on that?
I DO believe on the Lord Jesus Christ! Amen!
May the peace of Christ be with you on your faith journey... wherever God leads you, may your yes be yes!
dave i have been reading the apocraphy books. never have before. very interesting .hopefully i can get to your questions about biblical books later. and JANE, hi. Ask Amber for scripture evidence for Mary not stained with original sin. Amber does supply her scriptural interpetation for her virginity, "bible support" as she states,but I have not seen her biblically support Mary's Imaculate Conception (this Luther ,nor most early catholics (Augustine,Abmrose) or popes did NOT support). Ask indeed if God can do whatever He wants.I personally do not think so,yet He is omnipotent.Anyways ,blessings to all
David,
You are again basing your claims on sola scriptura. I ask you again, where exactly does the Bible state that it is the sole rule of faith. It doesn't.
2 Tim 3:16 says All Scripture is profitable, but it doesn't say All Scripture is sufficient alone.
Furthermore, if we look at 1 Tim 3:15, we see that the Church is the pillar and the ground of the truth. The Church established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, I found some quotations from the early Church fathers that are in support of Mary being full of grace and, thus, sinless.
Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).
Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Now, I ask you, why should we trust Luther? He wasn't an early Church father.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that he removed several books from his version of the Bible (in German) including Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because they did not fit into his theology.
He removed the book of James because it conflicted with his idea of Sola Fide (faith alone). He called it an "Epistle of Straw", I believe.
In addition, he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 so that it conformed with his Sola Fide doctrine (a tradition of man might I say).
So, Luther was adding and removing from the Word of God. This is really interesting since he preached Sola Scriptura, but his authority (through the Holy Spirit) determined which books were and weren't inspired. So, was Luther subject to Sola Scriptura after he changed the Word of God?
Sources:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/ch...s-of-the-bible/
http://www.staycatholic.com/
ecf_..._conception.htm
hello dave,I was about to talk about cannon formation. I still have much to say yet much was already said on that above (with Amber ),but first I'd like to hear how you believe cannon was formed (old or new) and remember ,i'd guess that all christian denominations believe 95% the same thing (books-content).Secondly,it seems a mute point because no matter what books are or are not included,they are only partially authoratative to you anyways ,right? Thirdly ,if we disagree on the meaning of some scriptures on the 95% books we agree on, wouldn't we disagree on points of interpetation on the other 5% of books also? So how do you think it was formed ? thanks
Hello David.. your first question of what is cannon....I did NOT use 2 Tim 3;16 as a defense rather it was quoted to show that your question is a good and valid one. What constitutes scripture or what is holy scripture, inspired by God (for surely not everything that is written and religious is NOT "scripture")??? 3:16 and 2nd Peter 1;20,21 would not have been written if a believer and a church community could not determine what scripture is fom God. All denominations leave certain books out. They simply believe they are not holy scripture or canonical.To be discerning on what is scripture I believe is scriptural,pleasing to God.He does allow the wheat and the tares to exist side by side. His voice(rhema and logos word) will guide us, and our hearts will be revealed by what we desire and what we call wheat and what we call tares. This is why both old and new testament canons were generally accepted without any big councils. Some scripture does say it is "scripture" (some of pauls letters and peter, and some old testament books) (I have commented on this on 4-27). Again, all faith communities (denominations) at best have sincerely tried to determine what books to include. I did not find the book of Enoch in my catholic or protestant bible, and Catholics did not accept all the books that were in the Septuagint,the protestants even less. One could be cynical and say that there were political, denominational bending of the truth for these conclusions. Perhaps,but I think it is bigger than your catholic versus protestant paradigm (I am of PETER ,I AM OF PAUL CARNALITY).It also shows relaince on external versus internal "authority" or an imbalance thereof. Can you not receive a rhema word ,can you not have a new heart, be led by the spirit personally etc. etc..In the end ,you either believe something is inspired scripture ,or not. I see it as very cynical to blanket all protstants as saying, "Well, we know these books are inspired and cannonical but because they agree with Romanism we wont accept them." There are valid non political reasons for all the variances.Yes the Septuagint contains the apocraphyl books.I just dont believe they all had equal value back then ,based on authorship, content accuracy,inspiration,and overall quality,. Many don,t believe it was part of Hebrew canon as evidenced by fisrt century historian Josephus,and Philo. Jesus and the apostles have 300 old testament quotations and none are from the apocraphyl books. Even Jerome did not believe them to be cannon but reluctantly placed them in the vulgate latin bible(and of course no other bible could be written under penalty of death,from pope or king, for a thousnd years). So one can belive in the Hebrew foundation or the greek manuscript foundation .God knows what He is doing. Word for word, both bibles are 98%(?) the same, proclaiming the perfect Word of God, and His GOOD NEWS.
hello again david -I would like to discuss your second question. It dealt with early christians obviously only having the old testament,and that "in context", they were saved that way ,and you say it weaken "solo escriptura" .Of course ,if we keep things in context, "solo escriptura" (scripture alone) is an expression coined by Luther around 1500. The context was that you had a closed cannon,the bible was complete now for 1400 years. You also had a centralized,Roman church rich in traditions and decrees. Authority rested equally on all three. None of these things were present when Paul wrote to Timothy. To be fair you did have a religion,a sort of church ,being Jewish,with there cannon(closed, although they did not know it at the time).They had traditions a leadership heirarchy. Christianity was and still is a jewish thing. Yet what is it that Paul stresses ? You quoted it yourself, "you have known holy scriptures ,to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ". Did he say your traditions will bring you to salvation? Did he say listen to your church leaders or the sanhedrin? Did he say listen to the jewish church which gave you the old testament? No. The jewish church ,which our foundation was apart of and came out of, failed miserably in recognizing truth ,of straying, of misinterpeting scripture. What Paul was saying is you need the word of God ,both logos (written word) and rhema word(spirit illuminated,personally). I would say it was a kind of "solo escriptura". I suppose Luther felt he saw church error,putting faith in scriptures to shed light on the topics of his day(just like in Paul's day the big topic was "jesus is messiah " and indeed scripture, yes O.T., shed light on the truth). Again, "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". Yet Timothy could read the old testament day and night and he would not come to faith. Today one could read old and new testament a hundred times and not come to faith. We have one word for "word". But logos and rhema are the two greek words used for "word". Some believe logos is the written word and rhema is the spoken word or even divinely revealed word. Regardless,it is the Spirit that quickens the word in our heart, that teaches us ,individualy and collectively. So in this regard "solo escritura' is not enough. It is inspired when it is written, and it must personally be inspired or divinely revealed when read or heard,(as Jesus told Peter ,"the father in heaven has revealed this to you "(that Jesus is Messiah). So reading is not enough. Spiritual life must be gifted from God. Lord willing next time I can discuss question 3,of what is "profitable'.thank you
hello david -on to your 3rd statement dated 6-13,that scripture is profitable or "useful" but not mandatory or exclusive. On a personal level, I am grieved that in order to elevete other sources of authority you must lower the value of the Bible. I am sure you'd disagree but that is how I feel. Anyways,I agree that the verse does not specifically say it is mandatory or exclusive for correction and righteousness etc. but it also doesn,t say it is not. It does not say the church or it's tradition or one of it's leaders can be "useful" for correction and righteousness etc. Paul only says scripture has all those "useful" applications. I would agree with you there are other scriptures that "use" the church ,traditions ,leaders, for truth and correction, we just have just have different paradigms for their operations.I believe the church its leaders and traditions should be in harmony with scripture. If something else is more useful or more correct ,then scripture is not useful,making Paul's verse incorrect. I view it like this .One could say a tape measure is useful for all kinds of measuments, but I can also use a dollar bill which is about 6 inches . I could also count the ceiling tiles in a room to get the lenght of the wall (if i know the tiles are 2' by4') or count the floor tiles, most being one square foot etc. But they are all dependent on some sort of premeasurement or standard ,coming right back to our original tape meaure. Nothing trumps the tape, even though it is not "mandatory or exclusive" to use. A foot ruler and a yardstick can measure the same object harmoniously. If not, one of them is a "liar", in error. . The church and all else must be in harmony with The Word, that is Jesus , that is the Holy Spirit. Worship Him in spirit,give alms in His spirit ,fast in His spirit, according to His Word. Is not the trinity unified ? The usefullness of a church, it's leaders and traditions can be measured by the unity they have to the Spirit ,the Word. To put it simply ,if we have a difference in dogma ,tradition etc., and I tell you I am right because my tradition or pastor or past leader says so ,even though it isn't in the bible or is not biblically sound then I make this verse of Paul a lie because the bible was NOT USEFUL in formulating my view or dogma etc. Does not His spirit or Word discern ALL things ? Again when did Jesus ever do or say anything that was unscriptural. The Bible Is God's Word. Nothing trumps it. Most Jews strayed from Him and His Word, as churches do from time to time ,to some extent ,as we do also. By His grace and Spirit may He continue to draw us back. Lord willing may we look at your point 4 next time. thanks
hello David - your comment dated 6-13 where Peter resolves a dispute about circumcision of gentiles without citing scripture thereby derailing "solo escriptura". At first I would think that theologians would say that argument is non-sensical because canon was still being formulated. It would be like saying Abraham acted without scripture or Noah or even Adam therefore "solo escriptura" is derailed. "Solo escritura" made it's appearrace well after canon was decided and closed. Shame on us that it had to be uttered ,that all we needed had been written and yet we strayed from His Word,that we did NOT follow the example of this council in Acts. Is scripture a "living", changing document (or at least it's meaning or interpetation)? So again,it is not a fair comparison because canon was still being formulated as you would agree .That decree BECAME canon (you and I did not need to be circumcised because of Acts 15). However, I am not a theologian and would be happy to share my thoughts on your understandable statement. I can see where catholics see this as a correct,scriptural model for future councils and papal decrees etc. However ,I do not see it derailing "solo escriptura", but further clarifying and upholding it. In fact the apostles and disciples were there patly because of the desire to be "scriptural". Indeed Peter's testimony silenced the Judaisers but it was when James cited scripture that sealed the matter. There had always been a way for gentiles to enter into God's covenenant, as noted in the O.T.. The problem was in recognizing God's spoken Word through Jesus ,that indeed there was a NEW COVENANT as prophesied in scripture. Peter merely cited no ,not the written word (at least it was not written yet), but the spoken Word, including, "What God has cleansed, that call not thou common". So the final outcome was in perfect harmony with O.T., and the spoken Words of Jesus himself and what God ,the Spirit, the Logos(Jesus) had already done (gentiles receiving faith in Christ and the Holy Ghost). The church or council made no private interpetation of the matter. Indeed the yadstick was what God said ,what God wrote, what God did (much scripture is history). How does that detract from "solo escriptura" ? Lastly,it shows Peter as having a strong effect on the debate because of his testimony of direct dealings with the gentiles, which the others did not have. There is no evidence of any authoratative heierarchy, except, "apostles and elders and the church". James seems to have been a key player as much as Peter. Again,thank you for letting me ramble on. I'd be happy to discuss your second point 4 next time.Alleluia
hello dave in regards to your second point 4,dated 6-13 about many things that Jesus did that were not recorded. Please read my response to that dated 4-06-09. Basically God has given us just enough scripture (actually more than enough). I am still trying to fathom "if you have faith as a mustard seed you could move that mountain". How can you consider something if it was not recorded.? John did NOT say you can read about these things in secular or non-inspired religious writings, did he ? One can read ,observe anything their heart desires, but hopefully not with the same attitude as something God wrote (the worlds' best seller). One can observe many things,but the benchmark for their value is God himself, His sent Son and Holy Spirit and His Word, and they are all ONE. "Sola escriptura" was uttered because man made "observances" were competing ,displacing ,impeding God's work, the law of the Spirit. Nothing new here .Adam had the same proclivity ,as did Abraham,as did the Jewish nation,as did Peter,as does the Christian church, as do I and probably You. By His grace He brings us back (or tries) to His will as revealed in His Word. I am sure most people today would have been disappointed with the Roman Church of Luthers day also, that some reform and realignment with God's Word was needed ..So to each his own. God allows the wheat and the tares to be side by side,to reveal the hearts of men. He will judge us all ,and will not contradict His Word. It will not be a pope or a king or a Luther or a council that judges us. So the more the above are in line with God and His Word ,the more value they are to the kingdom,to the church. Is all this a theory you ask ? "If scripture were truly infallible you would have only one interpetation", you state in point 5. That is like saying, if God were really perfect you wouldn't have bad people. I can give you a perfect BMW (or Mercedes) ,but if you dont put the oil in it, it won't be perfect for long. No, the Word is perfect. It is us that are fallible and in need of His Spirit (oil) to rightly know Him (remember "divinely written ,divinely revealed"). Otherwise people might get saved (without being humbled,in their flesh).Yes scripture does have one ,correct interpetation. That is why Luther called for getting back to scripture. Getting it right is possible,the yardstick being the Bible. Gods' Word was perfect to Adam, "dont eat of that tree" ,then came the "other" interpetation from Satan. Today it is the same. We are either a child of eve (righteousness or a child of Satan. We either have the right interpetation of scripture or the wrong one.By His blood we can get the right one. Alleluia. Lord willing we can discuss your comments dated 6-27-09 thanks
hello david on to response dated 6-27, where you put Luther in a bad light. For sure I know he was not perfect .I am not Lutheran either and do not put my trust in him. You asked ,"why should we trust Luther?" That is part of my main point ,why do you want to trust any man? For you trust Augustine and Jerome etc, but they were not perfect either. I believe God would have us take the best of these saints by judging them according to the Word, a very narrow gate. Judging them by tradition and what a church says is too broad and subject to error. Luther was roman catholic in many ways. You cite his playing with what is scripture yet other contemporaries did the same thing. Do you accuse Erasmus or Cardinal Cajetan, who also questioned the canon of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation and the apocraphyl books (Cajetan)? Luther was a theologian and many of his arguments were a thousand years old (from early shurch fathers). The Catholic Church allowed such discussion .This was BEFORE the Council of Trent that finally solidified canon. The bottom line is he did NOT remove any books fom the german bible. He even included the apocryphyl books (as an appendix)because of his strong belief that a christian with the aid of the Holy Spirit could decide for themselves the value of "scriptures". Holy Scripture should not be "institutional" or for church clerics only. He believed a bible could be in every home for personal divine revelation. He wrote you can agree or disagree with his prefaces to all the bible books as you could with Jerome who also prefaced the bible books. He toned down many of his critiques in latest versions,but ended up praising all the books you say he questioned. The "straw "comment was a comparative comment to other books of the bible which were very easy to declare as canon (while others required much more discernment). His using of the German word for "alone" he says was justified linguistically. He later wrote of his understanding of faith and works being compatible. It is not fair to judge him outside of his time. I hope you and I would both agree of the abuse of "works" that was occurring in his time. Luther loved scripture and believed in their authority, but was not afraid to discuss their attributes as was done from the beginning of the church. He devoted much of his life of translating the bible into a very poetic German translation. He was not alone. I believe a spanish ,english and several other language bibles were produced around the same time,by others. In short ,he INCLUDED ALL THE BOOKS, as divine inspired authoritative ,and his prefaces as his opinion. Lord willing we can discuss your comments on Mary next time.
hello folks -just a quick comment on Amber's statement that "God can do anything He wants" (as in making Mary sinless or raising her dead body). I have read that Tertullian (a 2nd century church father) who dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who put forth heretical ideas with the logic that God can do anything. He wrote: But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations,we may then make out God to have done anything we please,on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. WE MUST NOT HOWEVER,BECAUSE HE IS ABLE TO DO ALL THINGS,SUPPOSE THAT HE HAS DONE WHAT HE HAS NOT DONE. BUT WE MUST INQUIRE WHETHER HE HAS REALLY DONE IT...IT WILL BE OUR DUTY ,HOWEVER, TO ADDUCE YOUR PROOFS OUT OF SCRIPTURES AS PLAINLY AS WE DO" (Agaist Praxeas, chX andXI pg 605 Roberts and Donaldson,Ante-Nicene Fathers) It seems to me the "plainly as we do " means it was the common practice to use scripture as the "tape measure". He did not mention church heirarchy or tradition. thank-you
hello again - just a quick comment on denominations or different beliefs ,practices etc.Yes there are many in protestantism but some in Catholicism also. You have four traditions: Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic. There is also Latin rite local,Latin rite Catholic, Latin eastern local, Latin eastern rite catholic,Syro-Malabarese, Ukranian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian,Hungarian, plural Oriental -rite, Slovak, Coptic. You can also break them into four groups: Catholic pentacostals, Christo pagans,evangelical catholics, Spiritist Catholics. There are consevatives and there are traditional and there are Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (believe the chair of Peter is vacant)Found this stuff at www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm who studied a report from David Barrett
Hello David - Thanks for you research and your quotes of St. Augustine and Ambrose where they allude to Mary,s sinlessness. Indeed they may have believed that despite it going against scripture ("All have sinned ") which Augustine admits. I have seen no evidence that they based their opinion on scripture rather on "tradition" that was gaining momentum in the fourth century. I suppose one could find contemporaries that disagreed. Again there is no mention of it in scripture , or by the apostles or by the majority of earlier church fathers (this includes no mention of the assumption) The only writing (Transitus) on the assumption was declared a forgery and heretical in 459 by Pope Gelasius and Pope Hormisdas. Epiphanius in 377 said no one knows Mary's end. Jerome also said there were no reports of her assumption. I will agree the tradition grew and grew, despite these voices of reason and despite its heretical ties, till culminating in 1950 with a Papal decree that it happened. Luther may have believed on her ever virgin state but I don't believe he believed in her being immaculate or assumption. He did preach against worshipping her or extolling her to higher postion that of an obedient sevant. St. Augustine also says she was like us ,that "she was a disciple of Christ more than His mother.... The Church is something better than the Virgin Mary....she is a part of the church,a holy member,exceptional but still a member of the whole body"( sermon72A,7) He then extolls Christ as the head of the body. He would be shocked to hear that Mary today does what the Holy Spirit does ,to lead to guide to be along side of the believer. St Augustine says "that we may know this ,He teaches us ,because He is the beginning and He speaks to us."
hello folks-- just a quick comment on Mary's alledged assumption and sinlessness. "The wages of sin is death" yet Mary died .This does not add up . If she had no sin why did she die ? It would have made more biblical sense if she had NOT died but rather was transported like Enoch or Elijah .But as you say,it is authoritatively based on tradition and on "church say so".
Hello again--- It seems St.Augustine may have also tauted "solo escriptura" but by other words. In his book "Confessions" he writes: "Therefore,since we are too weak to find the truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the AUTHORITY of HOLY WRIT, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it you believed in and through it you be sought." That authority (of scripture) was "venerable and worthy of inviolable faith, because they were easy for everyone to read... and accessible to all men". Again he extolls "that we might seek your Word..in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. These same treasures I seek in your books....for instruction you produced sacraments, miracles and voices and words IN KEEPING WITH THE FIRMAMENT OF YOUR BOOK...You renewed our mind, made subject to you alone and needful to imitate no human authority...From you let it be sought, not from another man or from an angel, from you let it be asked. At your door let us knock...He is our mediator,as the Word he has no middle place...equal to God,and God....You speak to us ,you teach us...Even when we are admonished by a changeable creature (like the preacher or even St Ambrose), we are led to stable Truth, to the bridegroom's voice....you teach us, you are the beginning and you speak to us...you said to me before my conversion ,"READ ME, READ ME "....Do you who granted to him (Moses), your servant, to speak these true words, grant to me that I may understand them". (DIVINELY WRITTEN,DIVINELY UNDERSTOOD)....Fascinating reading which I would not have done but for the sake of our disussions here. Thank you, and may He leads us into all truth,in love.
hello -one final little note,seemingly trifle ,in contrast to bigger issues. None the less it has been put forth that Joseph may have had children from another marriage thus Jesus having half-brothers. I forgot and quite can not remember for myself ,but I recently read that Joseph has been declared by the Catholic Church or by several popes as himself being ever virgin,like Mary(that he had no children ever ). I suspect these decrees to be true.Have you heard? thanks
Eastern Orthodox christian here - and I totally agree. It isn't just the catholic church which houses this belief.
Welcome Elijah and thank you for your comment!
The reason I brought up Joseph's alledged virginity is because some have stated the possibility that "brothers" really was half -brothers, that they were Josephs' sons from a previous marriage. I do not recall who holds to that.
My dearest Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I have just one question for you - what is the basis of your faith? Do you have faith on the teachings of the Jesus(which is found in the bible) or in the teachings of an institution like a church(as a matter of fact any church)?
Our faith must be centered around the teachings in the bible.If so, any doubts you have, go back to the basic, ie..go to the Bible and read it for yourself and understand rather that arguing pointlessly.
One more point i wanted to make is that i know that the catholic church has a legacy of 2000 years, but just read the history of the church and understand how the dogmas came into being.I advise you to just refer the scriptures and find out for yourself where purgatory and other beliefs of the church is mentioned.
Open your eyes to the words of the Lord and by the way, i am a catholic myself.
Regards,
Shirley
I would not be surprise if David Ruiz one day, returns to the Catholic Church. He needs some spiritual humility to make the leap. I am impressed with her expression of her confusions about the catholic teachings.
I admire the intellectual discernment shown by Amber in the views.
I have spent 6 hours today reading through the various postings and commentaries on this blog. This is a wonderful reference material.
Fire on, I am learning from all these!!!
Hi Anthony, Glad to be part of the blog. I know Amber and Dave Ocampo certainly pushed me to research. I dare to you to read some of it again, I have myself. Does "it takes one to know one" apply here as far as me being too proud to make the leap back to catholicism". Do you think me proud of my "protestantism" ? I thought I wrote often of my disdain for pride in ones' denomination(including Catholicism ) as compared to having a relatonship with Christ, of having ones soul washed in the blood of the Lamb. That is paramount and nothing is more humbling. May we all be proud of that universal gospel. It is a sin to push for a denomination after that (after being saved, of obeying that gospel call of relatioship to God himself through Christ).
Hi Dave, I am very sorry if my statement, that you need some ''spiritual humility'' to make the leap to Catholicism, has come across to you as being a ''proud protestant''. No, that wasnt what I intended to communicate.
Actually a protestant gave me this link last Sunday, 20th Sept, in my quest for scholarly presentations on the issue of the ''Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus' Brethren'', and I ended up spending 6hrs reading through the all interesting/inviting ''dialogue'' b/w you and Amber. While following the presentations, I noticed how Amber was dealing with your concerns, line-by-line, issue-by-issue, but most of the times you would continue to introduce new issues without, sealing a particular point under review or even precisely dealing with some of her questions to you, in like manner. At some point, I felt that you started being evassive. Maybe I was wrong. But this is similar to my experience with most protestants, when we try to argument some of their wrong beliefs/attacks about the Catholic faith. When they see that they were either running out of facts or that I was pressing home a convincing point, they will start to disorganise/frustrate the whole argument by showing a kind of stubbornness that I often find hard to explain. Sometimes, they wouldnt even allow you to talk or listen to what you have to say. One wonders whether they are really out to seek the ''Truth'' or they simply want to keep ''protesting'' by being an ''attack dog''!
So in your case with Amber, what I said to myself was, if this Dave has come with open and free mind, and for once thinks out of the ''protestant domain'', or is genuinely seeking clarifications on the issues he is raising, that he will certainly begin to get conviction from Amber's coherent/logical presentations, and starts to reconsider his views on those Catholic teachings that he is yet to apprehend. But I believe that it takes being ''meek and humble'' in heart to renounce what one has held and practiced openly, and instead embrace that (exact opposite) which s/he has persecuted and criticised publicly. So such a difficult transition is what I say will require some kind of ''spiritual humility'' to execute.
Be assured that I read all your presentations with open mind, and by way of empathy, I ''pretended'' in my mind, to be a protestant while I was reading yours, but Amber's rejoinder would always knock me off the balance. Her presentation/explanations are too wonderful to be ignored.
Anyway, I dont intend to interrupt the flow. Dont mind me. Lets continue the journey. Christ prayer for us is that we may be one! Lets work towards it.
God bless u.
Shirley has just arrived. Welcome!
I would like you to read Amber's Apologetics posts on Friday, June 01, 2007 ''Debate: Sola Scriptura'' and on Friday, June 08, 2007 ''Debate: Sola Scriptura - Part 2''.
Regarding the issue of pugatory, you might find this link helpful...http://www.anawim.pair.com/CATHOLICS/
INFO.htm
Catholics invented Purgatory; the Bible does not mention it. There is another word that is not in the Bible either and that is the word Trinity. How many non-Catholics believe in the Trinity? A lot! They believe in what the word represents being; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The same goes with the word Purgatory. The Bible gives evidence of the state of Purgatory as follows:
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."
In Purgatory all remaining love of self is transformed into love of God. As Rev. 21-27 states, nothing defiled can enter heaven. Prayers from those still living on earth can help free those who are in Purgatory who are unable to pray for themselves. The Bible shows the following:
(Mt. 12-32) - that some sins are forgiven in the next world:
(Mt. 12-32) - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come (some sins can be forgiven after death-where? Purgatory)
(1 Cor 3:13,15) - Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (the fire is the purification of Purgatory).
(1 Peter 3:19-20) - By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah…(After Jesus' death he went and preached to the spirits in prison that were disobedient. Now, these prisoners were not in Heaven or Hell, where were they? These spirits are in a waiting place being purified for their disobedience, the place is called Purgatory.)
(2 Machabees, 12: 38-46) Read completely - It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.
Any proof from the early Christians? We have the graffiti in the Catacombs. On the walls above the graves of the early Christians during the first 3 centuries, there are many references for prayers for the dead. Why would there be prayers for the dead if they were already in Heaven? If they were some where other than Heaven or Hell, then they would need prayers. Also, there is no evidence in e
hello Anthony. Thanks for your explanation. When I told you to read stuff again it was because I felt a lot of my stuff was rushed, not slow ,but it is still there .I am also frustrated a little that I did not answer everything point for point. In fact at one point I told Amber to slow down, and she did. But no, everything was not rebutted but certainly enough (it was oodles of writing). However, I did try to rebutt as much as possible. I guess both sides would feel their points may have been glazed over by the other side.(you were humble enough to say "maybe I was wrong" about evasiveness). Certainly I feel some of my points were not totally addressed either, but again she wrote a ton too. We have discussed so much topic wise but I thought "Mary" was discussed at full length. I do not recall any point that I did not adress. If there are any points you feel I evaded I would be happy to address them. As you can tell ,I do not mind the dialogue and would be diappointed if I frustrated the dialogue by not addressing the issue at hand. However ,we can be frustrated even when it is addressed ,when it is not to our liking. That is a fair frustration I could accept (as Amber would say ,"we are just on a different page")......I agree that the level of humility one has is the level of conviction one will allow when truth is spoken. I am no different. I am hoping and praying for convicton, to "my page" as you are to "your page"....... One mistake you do make is that I do not come with an open and free mind in this sense: we are to have the mind of Christ, a willing slave to His truth as revealed in scripture by His spirit. I am open to listen to all and bring things to the Lord for His discernment, to acknowledge what is true and correct what is not (hopefully in love ,charity as Amber would say.Lord help me there). Again you will find what you seek. If you find that Mary is such and such ,it may be that that is what you wanted,not necesarily because it is so. One can study a matter ,but it is more humbling to let the matter study you. It all fits like a glove. Again there is a scholarly quest ,which can be done by anyone, and there is a quest for divine revelation. Perhaps that is what missing from me for you . I can not scholarly prove to you "Mary", without divine revelation on the matter for yourself .......It seems from your statement that if I would see the light or "take the leep" I would become a catholic(or "return to the Catholic faith") ,like that would be the crown jewel ,right? Why is it that the few protestants that have blogged say that if a Catholic sees the light, admonished to take the leep ,it is not to a denomination rather to a particular relationship with Christ, or to be born again, as the crown jewel?.....again I would be more than happy to adress any point you feel I need to .thanks . Alleluia
Hi Shirley...I am encouraged to see you affirm the age old legacy ,of more than two thousnd years and actually going back to the Garden of Eden, of going by what God has spoken and later written to us personally. Alleluia! As far as the Catholic church having a two thousand year legacy, yes as does the whole of non-sectarian Christian faith. I know Catholics boast of their heirarchy and institution of two thousand years, but that is their say so. Most religious historians give them a 1500 year legacy. A minor point, but I do not want to evade their claim. May they not evade your point of relying on scripture personally, and not thru the eyes of an institution. Blessings
"...it is not to a denomination rather to a particular relationship with Christ, or to be born again, as the crown jewel?"
I have to say, Dave, it's getting tiresome seeing you write this as if Catholics do NOT have a focus on a relationship with Christ. BTW, Catholics ARE born again in the Biblical sense - at their baptism. It is not the Church (or denomination as you call it) at the expense of a relationship with Christ. It is the the relationship ALONG WITH the love for the Church established by Christ and the fullness of truth that Christ intended for His followers. I don't know what kind of "religious historical" garbage you're reading to make the claim that Catholicism is only 1500 years old (except that which is clearly anti-Catholic along with their ignorance), but that sounds to me like the whole "Constantine invented the Catholic Church" garbage that has time and again been corrected. It is historical FACT that the term "catholic" in reference to the church was used in writing as early as 150 AD by St. Ignatius. Catholic means universal. The church wasn't "universal" in the beginning, but it was nonetheless still the church which by 150 AD, due to the spreading of the gospel, called itself Catholic (universal) and which has succeeded into what was later more formally called the Catholic Church (perhaps by the time which these so-called historians try to claim the church "began"). A read of the Early Church Fathers reveals without a doubt, however, that their beliefs were in line with what Catholics today believe, including the teachings on Mary, the Eucharist, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, etc. I have proven this with several quotes, which you seem to gloss over.
How is it that my defense of Catholicism is viewed as the pushing of my "denomination"? Are you not, through your protest and presentation of your own beliefs, also doing the same? Perhaps your mind shouldn't be "open and free" but rather in pursuit of and open to truth... even if that truth is not what you think it is at this moment. Are you beyond thinking that what you believe now could be at least partially in error? Or is it that you already have all the answers?
Hello Amber Yes. I agree that we are each trying to get the other to "our page" . However, where have I ever pushed for ANY denomination? Please feel free to point out the date of any such blog. The most you could say is that I am more pro -protestant, but that only leaves it at two camps, and then where are all the thousands of camps you claim there are (because of "Luther")?...............Again ,I stand by my point, there is an exhorting to an institution, and there is an exhorting to a personal relationhip with Christ (which the Catholic institution does also, but within their institution). It is just that I have not seen "protestants" exhort to an instituton. As you say you have "a" focus on Christ but I feel it is muddled with many other focus's. Should it not be "the" focus?................ I have thought more about that term protestant. The fact is we are both protesting: you what I may say and me what you may say.........I have a feeling that you wouldn't like it if I said I have all the answers, but would I be wrong if you feel Rome has all the answers (the Catechism says so)? On 9-16 blog on scripture I quoted "unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding " and "you have an unction from the Holy One and know all things" and "we have the mind of Christ". I have erred in my presentations but mostly in not presenting the truth strongly enough, wisely enough or in charity enough, but that indeed truth has graced my proclaimings. Again I am open to all you say ,as if before the Lord. He has led me to give credit to Catholicism and Catholics when due, but also correction and admonition when due, and apologies when due. This is all exhorted by St.Augustine (7-24 blog).Alleluia
Look, the bottom line is, I have a personal relationship with Christ. I had it before I was Catholic and I continue to have it now and my entrance into the Catholic Church did nothing to subtract from that relationship. In fact, it has enriched it unimaginably! The Catholic faith IS Christ-centered and that is made evident in the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist in EVERY SINGLE Mass that takes place.
I expect to be able to go to a church that absolutely believes it teaches truth and is guided by the Holy Spirit. I want to attend a church that has the Christ given authority to bind and loose and which reads Scripture in light of 2000 years of history and teaching. I don't WANT to be my own authority. I do NOT want to put my trust in a pastor who started a church 10 years ago denying ALL denominations or one who's denomination started in 1784 or 1517, etc.
The Holy Spirit led me to THIS Church... to the CATHOLIC CHURCH. THAT is my conviction and God has affirmed it for me time and again.
Protestants can't exhort to an institution in the same way that Catholics can... Instead, they exhort to their individual fallible authority and interpretation of Scripture, regardless of what the historical view is of any particular passage. THAT to me is the exact problem I have with it. By what authority is Paster Dan at First Evangelical Free Church able to claim that his interpretation is better than Pastor Scott's at the Methodist Episcopal Church down the street? And, by what authority do you get to claim that NOT having this "institution" makes you somehow more Christ-centered?
Dave, it is clear to me, and I'm sure I've said this before, that you somehow MISSED the big picture as a Catholic (you walked away from Christ in the Eucharist). For whatever reason that is, I simply wouldn't even attempt to guess. But truthfully, I believe you missed what many other people have NOT missed. And, now, you're spending an exorbitant amount of time arguing against common misconceptions as if Catholics are just a bunch of blind people who have no depth of understanding of a relationship with Christ because they adhere to an "institution". Again, it is NOT the love of the Church at the expense of a relationship with Christ. It is BOTH Christ AND the Church...
The Church keeps me focused on Christ. Her sole purpose is to point to the life, death, resurrection and forgiveness of Christ! So, call it what you will... I believe with my whole being that I am in the midst of Christ's bride, the Catholic Church. For that reason, it would not be right of me NOT to "push" one to belong to her. My entrance into the Church has brought me closer to Christ, given me a much deeper understanding of his love and urges me daily to pick up my cross and follow Him. I have found that this is also the case for many, MANY other Catholics I know and love. I simply want you and others to experience the same. So, call it pushing if you will... but you came to MY blog. You can't expect that I won't defend my faith and urge you to join me in the joy and peace that I have also found!
Hello again--Why is it if anyone says something contrary to Rome they are anti-catholic? You know that many almost christian cults have a persecution complex, and to them it is almost a badge of righteousness, that persecution must mean you are in the right. Yet even you admit Rome has killed more people than protestantism. So is protetantism more persecuted, therefore perhaps more right? Again Jesus was very critical of His own Judaism. Was He anti- Judaism?................We all know Catholic means "universal" and my exhorting to a personal faith and relationship with christ is very universal(catholic) and apostolic. Again many protestants proprly claim to be "catholic"-their faith is also around the world. We also agree that "catholic" was not mentioned for the first century and a half and even then it does not mean "Roman". Even you admit it had to "succeed" to what it is today .I would say "evolve". Why won't you admit that there was no Pope until the 4th or 5th centuries and that Rome did not rule the church for centuries. Institutions evolved and all were NOT there in the beginning, according to scripture and to the earliest of Fathers. I do not mind one saying "Catholicism" has its roots at 33 A.D., but so does ALL christian faith and churches. I am simply saying the institution of the Roman catholic church today is NOT the same as church heirarchy of the first century ,nor even the 2nd century,nor the third. Some of the evolving or succeeding then began and perhaps finished arond the fifth century. That is when you had a pope ,sitting in Rome ,ruling the church (different form previous centuries. Again during that evolving it is my understanding there is historical evidence of dissenters to that evolving or succeding (and please these were not heretics). What did the bishops of Jerusalem,or Contantinople ,or Antioch write about the bishop of Rome assuming and trying to be be their boss in the second or third century,for the first time???? Earlier(not sure which date) I did quote one church father who strongly blasted the idea of papal succession as an example. I have not glossed over your quotes, they prove my point. I see an evolving in church fathers. The closer you are to the apostles and their writings the purer doctrines are .They have different views on Mary,the eucharist ,baptism.etc Look at the dates of your "father " quotations and the closer they are to that 3rd or 4th century ,the more they may be flat out wrong. Again, they were in agreement on many apostolic teachings ,but not all. The "Father" writings show this evolving, changing (hey ,just like the jews).......Let us not be a respecter of persons, rather taking truth from where ever it comes from and admitting falsehood wherever it comes from, for we have an unction from the Holy One ,we are priests, He teaches us, we have a Sheperd.(You still have not answered my question as to wether you believe the bible literally when it says you and I ARE priest
I thought I was done,it is late ,but I just read your last two blogs. I do not want you to put your faith or trust in a pastor with a ten year old church etc. either, but I wouldn't want one to put their faith or trust in someone in Rome in a two thousand year old church either (in Christ alone can be a reality)......Nor do I want you to be your own authority. Christ in you is your authority. I will say it again, because you have said that several times now, and I am sorry I glazed over it, but Christ in us is our authority. With a heavy and hopeful heart I leave you until the next session. Alleluia
Dave, you have gone completely off topic... Did I say something in my last post about anti-Catholicism? Persecution? The pope? No, I thought the whole point was about the assertion that Catholics (or I) am pushing a "denomination" instead of focusing on a relationship with Christ.
"Why won't you admit that there was no Pope until the 4th or 5th centuries and that Rome did not rule the church for centuries"
Because that would be completely false! I wrote a post on this because it's too much for a comment: http://thiscatholicjourney.com/2...from-
peter.html
"I am simply saying the institution of the Roman catholic church today is NOT the same as church heirarchy of the first century ,nor even the 2nd century,nor the third."
I think I already proved this wrong, but here is an example from Scripture that they had a hierarchy... of course, logic says that the hierarchy must grow bigger as the church grows bigger so in that aspect, there has been some change. Regardless, we definitely don't see this kind of succession in modern churches.
Eph 2:20 - And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 4:11 - And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
1 Cor 12:28-29 - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
Acts 1:20 - For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Acts 1:25-26 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work... Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
1Tim 4:14 - Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (This is what we do when our priests are consecrated into Holy Orders)
1Tim 5:22 - Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
Acts 14:23 - And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
2Tim 2:2 - And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (Hmm... from Christ, to the apostles, to other faithful men and then on to others... that's at least four generations of succession listed right there in Scripture!)
Titus 1:5 - For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. (Another example of succession)
"The closer you are to the apostles and their writings the purer doctrines are"
So true! That's exactly how I know you haven't really studied the unedited writings of the Early Church Fathers. If you did, you would see just how far away they are in comparison to modern Christianity and today's non-Catholic churches. Funny how you're saying the farther away you are, the more they may be "flat out wrong" and yet you subscribe to ideas put out by Luther (sola Scriptura)... and even your own interpretations of things. By this logic, no modern Christian should be trusted to teach truth at all because we're all too far from the apostles. Are you subscribing to some sort of apostasy in the early church that was later corrected by modern day Christianity?
"They have different views on Mary,the eucharist ,baptism"
Yeah... um... I don't think so. What are you reading?!
"You still have not answered my question as to wether you believe the bible literally when it says you and I ARE priest"
I believe EVERYTHING the Bible says... Once again this will boil down to the interpretation of Scripture.
CCC 1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders."
"Christ in you is your authority."
Can you please let me know where it says this in the Bible? I would agree that Christ ultimately has authority, but the fact is, Christ passed on that authority to men... not to the whole body of Christ, but to the apostles who were succeeded by others (by the laying on of hands) and so on. If Christ in us IS the authority, we still have the same problem. Who decides who has the truth and who is teaching a lie? If I say, "I believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ... by the authority of Christ in me" and this opposes your belief that Christ is not present in the Eucharist, who has the authority to say whether one of us is wrong? Anyone can claim truth by the authority of Christ in him... anyone.
Hi Dave, on reading the last six blogs between you and Amber, it will be disingenous if you fail to admit that she has addressed your points one-by-one, line-by-line and has given you satisfactory references to butress her points. Unfortunately, your presentations obviously lack this clarify and style shown by Amber.
I guarantee you that many people are reading and following this blog and from my view point, you are coming across as ''confused''. I'm sorry, I don't know how esle to politely put this message across to you.
It would make for a better reading if you can remain ''focused'' on the exact points on discussion and model your arguments to deal with a particular point, one at a time. It would be helpful when you raise an ''issue topic'', please kindly allow it to be completely thrashed and settled. Whether or not you agree with the other side's arguments is a matter for you, but others are learning from them and making their own decisions.
Could you please deal with the questions that Amber has asked you to address. I must reuest that you provide factual references to back up facts any contentious point you state here. You can't be asserting an opinion that cannot stand up to scrutity on historic foundation or that has already been flawed by scholary presentations tracable to the Early Christain Church... I mean Catholic Church.
God bless you, and I pray you dont misunderstand me.
Hello anthony---you still did not respond to my question (9-23)of "glazed over" points on the "Mary" topic. You said on 9-22 I was "evasive". I thought I responded to your concern but you bring it up again. So please where was I evasive on "Mary" ?(what did I not address).............. We go on different topics partly because Amber or myself bring them up as part of answer. For example, she has mentioned many times now that regeneration is at baptism, yet that topic I have not addressed yet, but are you being judgemental by saying I am evasive on it ? Again, I found NO fault with her blogging. You can be impressed with format,and "style" and scholarship and be suggestively critical of my lack of it but truth sometimes rides on a jackass or even through a jackass (was it Balaam )? ......As far as me seeming confused, I would think you think so, because, as Amber nicely and properly stated ,we ARE on different pages.....Listen,we disagree on simple bible veres. Why wouldn't we disagree on what scholars have to say ? Anybody can see you quote an early father ,then I quote another early father ,you quote a pope ,then I quote a pope, you quote an historian ,then I quote an historian, you quote an protestant ,then I quote a protestant,even you quote a catholic, then I quote a catholic-EACH WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS !!!!(and yet many agreements). This is just like the Lord, Alleluia! We need divine revelation on the matter-on what a verse means or what an historian means or what a church means or what a bishop means or what a catholic or protestant means-yes as ST.Augustine says "He teaches us"(now what does that mean ?)
Hello Anthony--- One more point where you say my arguments may seem "confused". What is simpler, being baptized out of obedience to the gospel when you are saved (a public demonstration of what has occurred internally-faith in Christ which is all you find in the bible)), or as I pointed out in the "Notre Dame" book(9-2 church teaching "Wolves..."), the practice of postponing your baptism, even though you believe, to be catechumized first or doing it much later in life to wash away more sins ,then finally going to infant baptism, having a "god parent "believe for you ??? Was it not simpler in the book of Acts, than the centuries of change as noted above. I do not accept the premise that these were simply changes in "practice" but rather changes in doctrine also..........I was listening to Fr.McCluskey on Catholic radio, and his guest talked abouy having religious knowledge as a youth ,but having a conversion experience, like Paul, later in life and the father concurred. I thought to myself, "this is wrong or confusing ,I thought you were saved at baptism, which they were as infants". Sure enough ,minutes later they had to clarify (the confusion) stating that we have several conversions in our life at infancy then apparently later. Again ,what is simpler, what we find in the bible or this Catholic experience?????????Also, the claim to having "a" focus on Christ, yet having many other focus's (Mary ,the saints sacraments etc.)......Another example is giving giving scripture to show we are all priests in this new covenant, then in the next givinge non scriptural dictates saying indeed there are two classes of priests, in effect going right back to the old covenant of needing a special class of priests.(Amber 9-27) Which is simpler,less confusing, not needing circular reasoning ? Again, forgive me if I have argued cunfusedly, but certainly confusion can simply be from a lack of undestanding (or believing)anothers point of view...thanks
Hi anthony, what we may be having is some criss-cross on the comments from Ambers' "Mary" blog to church teaching under "sheeps in wolves clothing". I know I have to remember what was said and where.It is just the way the dialogue has flowed.
Dave, it's not about what is simpler. It's about following the Lord's instruction, including not hindering the children to come unto him. It's about the Old Covenant being fulfilled in the new (baptism replaced circumcision). If one could enter the old covenant faith through his parents, one should also do so in the new covenant. After all, Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it! The role of the godparent is not to "believe for you". It is to be an example of faith and to agree to help raise that child with a knowledge of God and his love.
One is born again and therefore saved at baptism - that is Biblical. However, one still must come to a point of conversion as an adult, when the faith truly becomes his own. This would have been no different for Jewish children in the old covenant. Even as adults as we grow in different stages of faith, we have moments of deep conversion, where we turn toward God and away from the world and sin. Salvation is NOT a one-time event. The Bible speaks of salvation in all three tenses: we WILL BE saved, we are being saved, and we have been saved. This tells us that salvation is a process. So, yes, we can be "saved" at baptism, but as we grow, if we turn from God, we can lose that salvation and later through conversion can again be saved.
"Again ,what is simpler, what we find in the bible or this Catholic experience?"
What we find in the Bible IS the Catholic experience. Catholicism does not contradict Scripture.
"in effect going right back to the old covenant of needing a special class of priests"
I have to wonder why you assume that the new covenant eradicated the old. The old is a reflection of the new!
There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the priesthood... just a few verses are:
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1 Tim 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee
The Church was meant to be hierarchical:
Eph 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Having a priesthood which guides the Church does not in any way diminish the common priesthood in which we all share. They are servants of the common priesthood... but they are set apart, just as Ephesians said some would be.
Hi Amber, just read your last 9-27 entry. I agree anyone can claim "truth by the authority of christ in him". You still have the same scenario of any church claiming authority because they are Christs' church. Remember, to a Hindu Catholicism is just one more christian faith to choose from. How do they decide ? For every argument you have for Rome, other denominations have their counter claim. The authority must come from above a church or a leader to help this Hindu decide. Indeed scripture says that the Good Sheperd, above and Lord of all churches and saved leaders, will guide the penitent believer to still waters, not to mention the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which convicts of sin, righteousness and judgement to come. Do you think a human on his own intellect or spirit can decide which church is right on their own?........ You say Christ has the authority, and is He not in us? Do we not have His mind, and share in in His priesthood, and yet the Catholic catechism (562) says we are not to ponder these things but let the church tell us what is and what is not ? "We have an unction from the Holy One,and we know all things"
Hi Amber--- still trying to answer 9-27 blog where you ask where does the bible say that "Christ in us is our authority" (or source of). In Luke 9 he sent out the apostles with authority .It progresses to the 72 disciples in 10:1 (10:20Jesus tells them be happy not at the authority but that there names are written in heaven-like you and me). Mk 16:17 authority is given to those "who believe" (it does not say "laid hands on, appointed"). Ep 2:6 We are SEATED with Him in heavenly places. Seat is kathedra in greek. X-Kathedra is the authority of our seat ,with Christ. Notice it is written to the Ephesians, not another apostle ,or bishop (of Rome- pope).It is WE, as in you and me-we can speak x-kathedra ,not just the pope...............He that is spiritual,discerneth ALL things-1 cor 2 It does not say "some" things,the rest leave to the church and tradition(catechism 562). Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that YOU may prove what is that good, and acceptable and perfect will of God. Rom-12:2. We have the "full assurance of understanding".........This does not address "appointing", laying on of hands, spiritual gifts and church heirarchy. That has it's place and for another discussion. But for now I just want to elevate what Christ has done for us in a personal way-this authority ,by wonderful grace-it is not presumptive in the wrong way..It is a new thing, a new covenant. Alleluia
Hi Amber -I should have added this to the above. I agree that Christ first gave authority, before the crucifixion, to the apostles. I gave the scripture-Luke(9:1). That is a fact. The church was not established yet (still in old testament mode), so just with this fact you can not say
it was NOT given to the whole church. After the resurection ,it left the 12(apostles) and the 72 (disciples) to ALL WHO BELIEVE. It is very old testament to say it was not the whole church. The old had a priestly clan, sons of Aaron. Yes, the 12 tribes had different giftings ,even functions as you do today in the church, but today we are all priests. The succession of the priesthood happens when you become a believer. Again elevating our posible relationship to Christ like never before. The most you could say is that under Catholicism, anyone can become a priest if so led, he does not have to be of a certain clan .That is slightly better than the old,but certainly not better than ALL being made priests,with different giftings.thanks
Hi Amber -You chided me for bringing anti-Catholicism on 9-27, when in fact you brought it up just three days earlier on 9-24. You said I was reading "garbage" that was "anti-catholic and ignorant". Was that charitable? Actually I like a frank conversation. Luther was great at getting down and dirty. I did read your pope blog (oh no ,another place to comment). I noticed you gave not a single scripture on papal succession. What you did give(church leaders from about the 3rd.century )on I acknowledge, as do most protestant historians. It does not mean I would agree with them. Your earliest quote was from 189 a.d.(even there it is honest to admit that Peter and Paul built the church in Rome-neither were bishops ). Were there two popes then? It goes on to 200 and 300 a.d. Again you honestly point out some friction from other religious centers (Alexandria). Some historians say Rome had to clutch and grab power away from other bishops......... So I feel you corroborate my point, that there is little direct evidence of present cuurent papal doctrine in the first and second century but slowly began to build. You do fail in listing any early father who entered in the debate against sucession.........As I said on 8-19(Wolves blog). Tertullian in 'Modesty' ch 21: You therefore presume that the power of loosing has derived to you, that is to every church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord".......Also you do agree that change occurred, yet you disagree when I say it was different in the first century. Which is it? I do not buy the premise that because the church grew you then need a pope. What is the difference if you have 20 city churches just after the apostles to 40 a century later. For that matter would not the papacy have changed even more after the 4th or 5th century populations to todays church populations ? You said before not really. .....Please do not mingle papal sucession with universally accepted heierarchy of aposles, prophets, deacons, bishops (notice there is no mention of priest or head bishop in your scriptures.) Yes there are different giftings, just as there are different parts of the body but Christ is the head....again as far as succession, it is God who annoints and gifts. Remember the apostles drew lots to choose a relacement apostle for Judas, but you never hear from him again(Mathias). That was mans effort (old testament-casting lots). Many believe God chose Saul to become Paul as that replacement. Is Judas one of the twelve apostles in jerusalems foundation ? Then why would not papal succession "break "with many of the bad popes, just as Judas lost his foundaton place. Paul was very specific on how squeaky clean a "succesor" should be. Thank you for your scipture quotes on 9-27.I agree with them. I just do not see "pope" or "priest" there. Thanks
O.K. on to your third entry on 9-27( I do no want to accused of glazing over anything). You quote me, "the closer you are to the apostles and their writings (scripture) the purer your doctrines are. You then attribute "sola escriptura" soley to Luther ,like man, that is almost 1500 hundred years later. Am I now on a limb being so far away from the apostles ? That is my whole point,I am resting on what the apostles wrote -the purity of scripture. I have also pointed out that this is not a new idea. Perhaps the word of "just scripture" is new, just as "trinity" and "pope " were new words later formed to represent much older truths(pope is according to you). But the fact is early fathers, and I quoted Augustine many times, rested wholly on scripture and it's divine revelation to the individual soul. Again ,the fathers you mention are from what time period ? You have two thousand years to pick from. I am wondering that it must not be that early (say 3rd 4th century?) to believe there is something other than scripture with equal authority....... Again, it is not my own interpetation, for scripture is not be privately interpeted, but rather divinely interpeted. Can not God Himself enlighten me and you as Augustine says ? Again, it is not me...it is not me ...it is not me. (thank you) Again ,by this logic no church should be trusted today, unless they do go back to the apostles and their writings. Fine ,if you want tradition or history, it must be in line with scripture. This will be true even 3000 years past the apostles........... As far as apostasy,it has been around a long time ,since the Garden of Eden,to the Jews, to parts of the early church ,continuing today ,in all denominations,catholic included. It occurs whenever we act out of God's will as revealed in His scriptures by divine revelation. I do not want to go into wether the Catholic or lutherans etc. are totally apostate churches. I am comfortable at this point taking specific issues as they come. Yes Luther was a Catholic, carrying on "succession" as an ordained monk right, who did reform several issues. thanks still not done on your 9-27 cooments
"Catholic catechism (562) says we are not to ponder these things but let the church tell us what is and what is not"
Huh? What catechism are you reading?
CCC 562 Christ's disciples are to conform themselves to him until he is formed in them (cf. Gal 4:19). "For this reason we, who have been made like to him, who have died with him and risen with him, are taken up into the mysteries of his life, until we reign together with him".
"This does not address "appointing", laying on of hands, spiritual gifts and church heirarchy."
So you're going to ignore all the Scriptures I've already pointed out that DO discuss hierarchy? I can name several more, by the way... Indeed, it does have it's place... so one must wonder, how do you know that you're understanding it properly? Because the Holy Spirit told you? Does it matter if your view goes against the historical view?
"The church was not established yet"
What? Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18:17, Acts 2:47, Acts 8:1, Acts 8:3
This was happening at the same time. You're going to tell me in the midst of Christ's establishment of a church and the apostles speaking broadly about the church... that the church was not yet established and that these verses, therefore, could not have been meant JUST for the apostles? WHAT?! Are you reading the verses I posted at all?
1 Cor 12:28-30
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
How can you argue with this?
"I noticed you gave not a single scripture on papal succession."
Of course not... that's because it was in response to your comment, "Why won't you admit that there was no Pope until the 4th or 5th centuries and that Rome did not rule the church for centuries"... So, I used HISTORICAL FACT to prove you wrong. Not everything has to come from the Bible and this was not a statement that required Biblical proof. Also, I found an even better statement. St. Irenaeus in "Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)": http://thiscatholicjourney.com/2...apter-3-
st.html.
At this point to deny papal succession would be a matter of denial of historical fact. Even I am further convinced by finding these writings.
I already provided Scripture that showed succession of the apostles. Peter wouldn't be an exception. He clearly had primacy in the early church and this is also made evident in Scripture...
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Peter's name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
"Peter and his companions" Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter's name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together
Tertullian quote IN FULL since the way you quoted it is misleading and makes it say what you want it to instead of what it really does:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On thee," He says, "will I build My Church; "and," I will give to thee the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever thou shall have based or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared..."
"yet you disagree when I say it was different in the first century. Which is it?"
It depends on what you're claiming was different.
"I do not buy the premise that because the church grew you then need a pope."
And I never asserted such a thing. The role of pope began with Peter (though not always called 'pope', there was a place of supremacy in the early church).... What I said was that the church may not have been called CATHOLIC from the beginning because it was small... and as it grew, it began to call itself Catholic, meaning universal. And, of course, since it was based in Rome, it was therefore eventually referred to as "Roman Catholic".
"notice there is no mention of priest or head bishop in your scriptures."
Well, according to Webster's: "The English word "priest" is derived from the Latin presbyter, elder" Are we truly down to having to use the exact word 'priest' in order for the role to be valid?
"but you never hear from him again(Mathias)"
What difference does that make? It was still important enough to include in Scripture, right? What's your point?
"Many believe God chose Saul to become Paul as that replacement."
And, where does it say so in Scripture?
"Then why would not papal succession "break "with many of the bad popes, just as Judas lost his foundaton [sic] place"
Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid, in his book, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999) describes this better than I:
Clearly, Christ entrusted the role of Apostle to weak, even at times wicked men, But does that fact somehow disqualify them from fulfilling the purpose for which He called them? Of course not. God's grace is more powerful than man's sin, and the same is true when it comes to the papacy.
Yes, there have been some wicked popes. Corruption, immorality, even murder, were sins committed by some bishops of Rome. But what does that prove, except that they, like the Apostles, were not always faithful to the graces God gave them? This is true of all of us, to one extent or another. The fact that there have been bad popes -- and that's a fact no Catholic disputes -- does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy.
...The fact is, most of the popes have been good -- even heroically good -- men. They have been, on the whole, good examples of Christian virtue and perseverance in the apostolate. That fact is very easily forgotten by critics of the papacy.
"I agree with them. I just do not see "pope" or "priest" there."
Do you believe in the Trinity? Why? That word isn't in the Bible... BTW, this is a rhetorical question. The word "pope" isn't in the Bible, but that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't describe the concept of the pope. The word "Trinity" isn't in there either, but through study, and by the grace of the early church, the concept of the Trinity has always been understood. Again, the word doesn't have to be EXACT in order to "count".
"Can not God Himself enlighten me and you as Augustine says ? "
I never denied that God can enlighten us or that the Holy Spirit can help guide us to the true meaning of Scripture. What I'm saying is that there MUST be some authority outside of Scripture to help determine whether or not we're getting it right. As stated numerous times, how do we know who is right and who is wrong when everyone is claiming that THEY are guided by the Holy Spirit and yet still manage to interpret things radically different from the next person? What do we hold our interpretations up to in order to discern if we are understanding it the way it was originally intended?
"Fine ,if you want tradition or history, it must be in line with scripture."
THAT is EXACTLY what Catholic Tradition does! It is 100% in line with Scripture. NOTHING is contradictory. Amen!
"But the fact is early fathers, and I quoted Augustine many times, rested wholly on scripture and it's divine revelation to the individual soul."
I already disproved this and your quotes are so often out of context, that what you're quoting is hardly what they said at all.
hello Amber as far as Augustine ,you can read it for yourself,I do not believe they were out of context,that would be dishonest on my part.I read "The Confessions of ST.Augustine". "Therefore,since we were too weak to find the truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished that both through it you believed in and through it you be sought". He goes on to says scripture is "easy for everyone to read and it is "accesible to all men" and"grant to me that I may understand" You (Jesus)renewed the mind,made subject to you alone and needful to imitate no human authority"..Again ,he admits as I do also the role of teachers and deacons; "to all oficers of your ministry, neccesary for perfecting the faithful in this life" ch. 5 "The Authority of Scriptures"..... This Augustine considered to be part of Catholic experience, and preferred it to philosophy and the Manichean sect. Why can't you except this ,I accept many of your quotes as legit(I may not agree with them but I accept them)
As far as catholic tradition being perfect and true to scripture, I disagree. Hence the volumes and volumes of blogging and debate. Remember Mary? For all have sinned (scripture) ,except for Mary(tradition).I would believe this if it were prophesied but it was not. The opposite was prophesied, a maiden should conceive, a fallen creature of jewish descent.
Augustine's quote discusses the importance of Scripture in the life of the Christian... but it does not say that Tradition and/or authority outside of Scripture is unnecessary. This is in line with what I've already told you before. It's not that we cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit and come to a right interpretation when reading the Bible. However, we must be sure that how we understand the Scripture doesn't contradict how it's always been understood and that it doesn't contradict established Christian dogma/doctrine or other Scriptures. Scripture clearly has some authority... it just simply is not the SOLE authority. Nothing Augustine is saying here contradicts what Catholics already know and believe.
"The opposite was prophesied, a maiden should conceive, a fallen creature of jewish descent."
Chapter and verse that states she would be a "fallen creature" please.
I have already proved the Catholic viewpoint on Mary in light of Scripture (and the historical viewpoint as well)... You simply refuse to see it.
I liked Madrid's thoughts .They deserve to be in the mix. However ,so does the idea that absulute power corrupts absolutley. It is more than the bad ones just being mortal men or forsaking grace. The structure itself has partial blame for the temptations and weakness' of popes. I am not sure if I were living under many of the popes, that I wouldn't question the whole papacy itself. It seems too easy to dismiss them today as a few bad apples, and that it can happen to any organization. Still, my original thought of claiming unbroken succession thru bad popes (probably their names are not even written in the book of life, as Judas,is a stretch.) I understand your points,you can't do any better.thanks
I guess we have to back to basics on what is a fallen creature. I was taught as a catholic about the "fall"of man in the Garden (Adam and Eve) .All people born after that wuold be born with a sin nature. A descendant of Eve would bear the "devil crusher". Lineage was further defined to Abraham, Jesse, David, all born with a fallen nature. She would be a virgin (Is 7:14) You are right it does not say was "fallen", but it is implied but also directly stated that ALL men have sinned. If she were different,after millions and millions of births, you would think the bible would tell us she was "Immaculate". I mean that would be very unusual,after all it contradicts biblical reasoning. One church father agreed, but still had no problem in believing her "Immaculate"(I do not remember who that was, I just remember he had no problem with an exception to that scripture ,that all have sinned). He bluntly chose tradition over scripture, after all, his predecessors in the faith could not be wrong ,right? Yes, you and I have presented "Mary" quite fully. I understand all your arguments both biblical and historical based on tradition.You can't do any better. I believe all my arguments were simply biblical, and historical when fathers used scripture for there arguments, not relying on the traditions of men(even if they were saints).
Hey I found the baltimore catechism #3 at baltimore-catechism.com/ (I am not sure about the hyphen) #562. "Scripture alone can not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith....because all men can not understand the Holy Scripture, but all can listen to the church......Many things in Holy Scriture can not be understood without explanation given by tradition" Again ,that is exactly how the Jews got off track,or was evidence of being off track, xtra biblical tradition. I guess Augustine was wrong when he said Holy Scripture had SURPASSING authority. Again I understand this #562. You have followed it to the letter in your arguments. You can't do any better but I still must humbly disagree.
Hello Amber reading your 9-30 entry. I read a little more of Augustine and found no place where tradition or institution or anything rivals Holy Scripture. He said nothing surpasses it. He does mention God "produced out of corporeal matter sacraments, and visible miracles and voices and words IN KEEPING WITH THE FIRMANENT OF YOU BOOK". He does not say those things authoratatively interepet scripture but are subject to scripture. He does admonish the preaching of ST.Ambrose which eventually led to his conversion. But he admonished more and more often the work of the Holy Spirit thru Ambrose and to himself personally to see the light. Ambrose was a "changeable creature" whom the Spirit worked thru. Augustine never abdicated interpetation to Ambrose.(nor would Ambrose want that). .....The word surpasses means something,right ? Why can't you just say Augustine was wrong here, as I have said about other early fathers' statements ? ........ I guess we just differ on believing on the efficacy of the Holy Spirit to give us understanding of scripture. Oh yes you believe, but with a "but"or "however" or it has "some authority" or the Holy Spirit must be in line with a certain church. Why do you have to qualify His minitry ?.................. Finally ,to the discerning, open minded child like heart, Augustine gives a totally different view, contrary to #562. But he would say over our diferences, "Lord have mercy on us". Alleluia
Hi I am reading your fourth 9-29 entry. You listed many scriptures on church offices or heirarchy. I agreed with them but did not see a place for pope or priest. I mentioned in my last 9-29 blog that of course pope was not a word yet (why did you repeat me?). The concept was not in the scriptures you gave. I understand where your concept comes (Peter the rock) which we have discussed our differences before,you said I split hairs and took the greek too literal (Peter is a "stone" and "rock "is the foundation) (church teaching: Wolves-8-11).......... I do not believe priests is mentioned in the New Testament as an office, seperate from the fact that it mentions we are all priests: the deacon, the bishop, the prophet, evangelists, preachers, pastors, the believer. Again, please do not assert I "ignore" the offices above. Furthermore, I disagree that a prespyter is the same office biblically as priest. Why does the New Testament specifically not mention the word "priest" as an office for some ? Again ,biblically a priest is a go between, a mediator,one who offers up sacrifices for others. Priest(s)is mentioned almost a thousand times in the old testament. The new testament is clear in mentoning priest as an office for all,in Christ whom we are seated with. This is the New testament with a new priesthood -all believers .Church offices even have new names-presbyter,deacon,and bishop(only found in this New Testament). No ,I do not believe I am quibbling over semantics,or splitting hairs. Language is a beautiful instrument of God, accomplishing His ends. He foresaw this debate before the foundation of the earth,and certainly while scripture was being penned. To him that hath an ear let him hear.I am always amazed at how His Word searches out the condition of our hearts.........I have read your answer from the catechism on priesthood. Thank you. You do admit you and I are priests in Christ. CCC 1546 seems very biblical. If only it stopped there. You go on to "qualify" scripture. CC1547 goes on to say now there are two classes of priesthood:the common priesthood( very biblical-all of us, and the xtra biblical ,the ministerial (office of)prietshood. Very well put, I understand, but I totally disagree based on scripture reasoning above.
As far as my Tertullian quote (your 3rd 9-29 entry) I believe he denies papal succession from Peter but does believe Peter was the "rock". I stated that on 8-19 "church teaching "-wolves. I believe he says the church does not have "the keys" and can not "base or bound". This gift was Peter's alone, as a jump start of church. That is what I and apparently others get out of it. "derived to you " I believe means "succession". I could be wrong,I did have to read it over and over again. He does say Peter is the rock (why you quoted it first),but does not derive to others (why I quoted it).
again on you 3rd entry 9-29 we disagree on church heirarchy changing from the 1st cent. to today. I do not believe there was a place of supremacy beyond bishop and perhaps the apostles. Their is no scripture for a head bishop, nor practice of it for at least a century. Nor is there a scripture for succession of anything supreme. There is succession as you state for parochial ofices(bishop or deacon etc.). The first time formal mention of primacy was at the council of Nicea in 325, where Antioch, Alexandria and Rome had authority. Rome had precedence of the three. Then Constantinople was added in 381 a.d.. Peter may have been a bishop of Rome, but not the only one of Rome. Apparently Rome did not have a "single" bishop until around 150 a.d. (they had multiple bishops at the same time-that is not to say one did or did not have preeminence). At the beginning of the 2nd century it was presumed that Peter and Paul exerted authority together (Ignatius,Rom4.2) The earliest lists of the Bishop of Rome do not list Peter or Paul as bishop(Iranaeus3.3.3). Apart from heirarchy, all christianity honors their work and martyrdom in Rome. It is the third century that Mt 16:18(Peter and the rock) is used for scriptural warrant for papal succession. Again, for me the papacy grew very slowly ,with troublesand objectons ,and ups and downs in power culminating it's authority in 1870 with the declaration of Papal Infallibility. Yes it is historical, but not biblical in its roots. I believe we are all accountable one to another: (Rome can chastize Corinth for a mistep- as they did in 97 a.d.-but Corinth could chastize Rome if it mistepped-no supremacy, but all part of one body. As 1st Peter 5:2 says feed the flock "not by constraint" not by "lording over" or for "filthy lucre" and "be subject one to another"
You then ask what is my point about Mathias .I stated the point that God gives gifts and annointings, having precedence over mans' annointing. Man can be wrong in whom he annoints( i.e. pope). That is an inherant weakness in papal succession.........I have no direct biblical evidence for Paul being the 12th apostle ,replacing Judas. However he does state he is an apostle chosen by Jesus himself( like the other twelve), and no other apostle is named in the bible except for these thirteen. Again Jesus is the supreme head of the church and needs no supreme vicar for we are all his vicars.
Hi Amber on 9-29 you gave a bunch of scriptures which I am going over. We already discussed Peter and the rock and we could not agree. As a side note you used the next line "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" as text proof that the catholic church can not ultimately fail ,or even go wrong. I never forgot that. I think a better explanation is that the believer (the church) is no longer at the mercy of death due to #1- the resurrection ,#2-believers who die before the resurrection go to be immediately with the Lord. Kind of like your death or mine does not stop us from being the bride forever.....Next ,the "key and bind" verse. I agree they were specifically given to Peter (thee), in that as spokesman for the 12, he gave the first preaching at pentecost, and the church was off and running. That is as far as I see it. As far as binding, this was given to all the disciples, as described in 18:18 and in John 20:23..........on to John 17 Peter the "chief sheperd"- I must say "chief" is your word, it is not in the bible,but I understand your assertion. Many would look at this as the need for love of Christ as a foundation to serve and indeed all the apostles were present and heard the same thing ,and all would go out and feed the sheep (Apostles-sent ones) .The three questions to Peter reflect his three denials (hardly the picture of a super apostle-Peter could not even say Jesus the word of agape love ,he had to use phileo love(something akin to do you love me ?,yes I like you). Again all the apostles but John fled at the cross, it is just that Peter boasted he would not. I see your point ,just can not agree.....Next the angel being sent to Peter- The actual verse, the angels first speaks to the ladies and said ,"go your way and tell the disciples and Peter that I will meet them in Galillee". I do not see Peters' supremacy here. I see an apostle deeply wounded by his denial of Christ, so much so that he needed special encouragement......Next, first appearrance to Peter- Yes as far as the apostles, but Jesus first appeared to the ladies, including Mary Magdeline......Next I agree that Peter took a leadership role in the election of Mathias as apostle but I am still not sure this was needed, because as noted earlier ,Paul's apostleship. But yes he led......Next ,I agree he had the first sermon (used the keys) and the church began. He did also the first miracle ,and Annanias judgement......As far as Simon being excomunicated- I disagree that he was excommunicated. He definitely was called on the carpet for wanting to buy powers ,not much discernment needed here that something was amiss. It seems he repented (he pleads with Peter to pray for him)..To be coninued..
O.K. Thanks for letting me continue on your scriptures trying to say Peter is pope. Again Jesus did tell Peter to feed His sheep. In Acts 20:28 Paul tells the elders of Ephesus-"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the the church of God...". It is interesting to also note that the Holy Ghost gives giftings of offices here. One could not decide for themselves, "Gee ,I think I will become an elder ,or a priest" and then get annointed or laid hands on. I believe the Lord picks and annoints, elders see it(that the person is gifted) ,and then confirm and lay hands on the already annointed person.........On to your next verse-Peter was first to the gentiles , to which I agree,definitely the lead role here. But it also points out why I do not go any further to popery. Peter then shows his carnality by eating with the gentiles, which the Lord told him is o.k., then as soon as James the apostle shows up, he leaves the gentiles for "fear of them that were of the circumcision" Gal 2:12. Again, I love Peter, "he is first among equals" someone once wrote. If he were superior to the other apostles, apparently he nor the others did not know that. Why would he worry(fear) about what James thought about him eating with gentiles ? Hey ,he was pope, "chief ". Furthermore, why did Paul confront Peter "face to face" ?Paul chewed him out, that Peter "was not walking uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel" Gal 2:14. Did not Paul know that Peter was "chief", pope, vicar of Christ, to chastize him so boldly ? This is what I meant by absolute power you corrupt absolutely. Had he really been pope, it would have been much more difficult to correct Peter. The apostles were a team. They needed each other.That is why they are all twelve a foundation in the new jerusalem.
Next, Peter led the first council in Jerusalem. I strongly disagree. If you read the text from a neutral position, you would not get that Peter was the "leader". As a matter of fact, being at many public mettings, I get the impression that James was the "board president" of this metting. Peter did not call this metting, nor did he end it. Again, Peter waited before he spoke, he did not begin the dialogue, and there was much disputing. Again, remember the embarassment of being hypocritical with the gentiles, where he would eat with them , but did not want to be seen with them ( Gal:2). He finally testifies of what God had told him and what God did in the hearts of the gentiles after his preaching to them. Again he testified of what God did and what God said. Peter made no decision, but his testimony did stop the disputes, and they listened to further testimony from Paul and Barnabas. Finally, James makes the "decision", the pronouncement, the first dogmatic decision" and closes the meeting. Why do you say Peter made the decison? His testimony did influence it ,and thankfully he repented of his hypocrisy before all. It is my understanding that James was the bishop or leader of the church at Jerusalem by this time. As a side note, commentators are split as to whether the gaff by Peter in Gal:2 was before or after this council. If I withdraw it from this council, then it only makes Peter's hypocrisy seem worse in Gal:2, that after such a great speech for the gentiles at this council, he would still not get it that gentiles and Jews were equal in the faith. thank-you
Your last scripture_ that Paul went to visit Peter in Jerusalem. I aggree, Peter is the most notable of the twelve. He also saw James there. Acts 9:27 says "Barnabas took him to the apostles" which must have been the same Peter and James.....To wrap up on your comments, I agree the world over Peter is the best known and most noted of the original 12 (I like Paul a lot too- he is mentioned about 195 times also). If I believed in popery I would choose Peter also, but I do not. I see him more as captain of a sports team, one of twelve on the playing field. He is not the coach, Jesus is the coach, the head leader. This is how it was with Israel in the beginning, as with the church in the beginning. Then Israel wanted a visible king, like the heathen nations around them. Did the church want a visible vicar, like Rome the most famous, prestigious city of that world ? ...........That George Washington was our first president is very clear cut.The position was clearly defined in the constitution, unanimously elected and served out his terms. That Peter was the first pope and those that shortly followed is not as clear cut historically. It was not till the 2nd and 3 and 4th centuries that the office of the pope became defined and historically told, with its' obvious predispositions and conflicts of interest and objectivity problems......Next, Lord willing may I suggest some scripture that supports my views. thanks
I will repeat form earlier blogs that whenever Jesus spoke to Peter on this papal issue, the other apostles were also there. You would think they would understand that Peter was "chief vicar". Yet Paul had no problem in correcting Peter............... In Luke 22:24, Mat. 20:25 ,Mk 9:34 you have the apostles arguing amongst themselves as to who would be the greatest or James and John asking with their mothers ,to be seated at Jesus 'right hand side (of course the other 10 apostles were "indignant and mad at James and John). It kind of reminds me of all the bribes and deaths that occurred with quite a few popes.(Sorry ,this is not a "card", just history of only some). Even more important Jesus answered, "It shall not be among you" having "princes" like the "gentiles, excercising dominion over the them ". What a difference between what Jesus said and what a Cardinal Manning wrote for a pope, "I claim to be supreme judge and director of the conscience of men.....I am the sole, last, and supreme judge of what is rght and wrong." the decree of Papal Infallibility followed........Finally early Fathers stated Jesus was the Rock the key: Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the sheperd of Hermas. Their quotes can be found under Ambers' "church teaching -wolves 8-19" or there abouts......So based on Jewish history ,and church history, no special recognition of Peter in the New Jereusalem apart from the twelve, Jesus never stating he needed a head vicar, vicars yes (many) but no chief vicar, the apostles still quibbling amongst themselves over this, and the role of the Holy Spirit and Jesus being the head ,the chief yes chief, chief cornerstone, the Rock etc. etc etc., I am fully persuaded in no papacy. I thank you for all your heartfelt input, which I carefully examind.
Another point if I may. I haven't totally researched this but why did the empereor call all the councils in the fist five or six centuries (except the Jerusalem one) ? I also heard that the emperor made many of the pronouncements (some to stop bickering, division) or that they needed his approval. Why if indeed there was one superior bishop, or pope? I understand that indeed the bishop of rome ,or pope did not attend these until the 7th century(not even his delegates ? Is this true?
I understand that at one point there were 3 or 4 different pope lists with differing totals, and several have a different "first five". Is it true that historians have differing views on totals and sequence ? I understand there is nothing in writing stating that Peter laid hands on Linus annointing him succesor. Could Linus have been number one in command and christs' vicar ,even while the apostle John still lived ? Again he may have been one of many bishops of Rome, but did he know he was Peters' succesor. Is there any evidence that Cletus or Clement knew of their superior authority ? There seems to be nothing in writing until almost 100 years later (Iraneus). Clement certainly had a chance when the church of Rome sent a letter of admonition for proper order in the Corinthian church. He did not even put his name on the letter. Some say he was being humble, or not wanting to "lord over", perhaps. It could have been that there was no one superior bishop in Rome (Rome had many presbyters-bishops)), and the presbyters properly sent it as "one"..... Knowing what Rome has done to so called heretics and their writings,if anything was found to be written contrary to Rome(papal succession), wouldn't it have been tried to be found and burned ?.................. On the positive side Iraneus writes, "..abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth" the list of succession is his proof to the a gnostics and several other cults he was trying to combat. Gnostics may have been drawn to the "succession" proof. Iraneus might have had his heart in the right place ,but I am not sure about his method. That is, do you have to "prove" Christianity ? Was he just trying to show that indeed Peter did meet and share faith with Linus, who became a presbyter and Linus with Clement, who became a presbyter(of Rome) etc. To a gnostic, prestigious Rome could have an appeal(better than Antioch, where presbyters also passed on the faith). If Iraneus did put the Catholic spin on it(supremacy and authority being passed on by the laying on of hands), the mysticism of it would have appealed to the gnostics. Either way, Iraneus may not have been trying to prove apostolic or papal succession, but unfornately, he laid the foundation for his "list" to be used by Papal propagandists. Iraneus would have been better of using the old fashion method of, "By the foolishness of preaching (the "Word"-the gospel) should men be saved"
I just reread your copy of Iraneus's "Against Heresies". He says there are "Churches" (plural)founded by different apostles, who then appointed bishops to those Churches (delivering up their own place of government). Notice he makes no distinction between apostles or their "place" except that Peter and Paul were the two most glorious (apparently Iraneus did not know Peter was "chief"). Each Church had it's history of succession, but it would be too tedious to declare them all. So he chose Romes'succesion because of it's "great ,ancient universally known and founded by the two most glorious" giving it "preeminent authority", and the other churches must aggree with it as far as having the same apostolic succession. The churches must be united in this apostolic succession, else Iraneus'sarguments fall by the wayside.The gnostics could say, "well, maybe Peter and Paul did not withold secrets, but maybe James and John did over in Antioch or Jerusalem, and we know what they are" (gnostics claim to have secret wisdom). They must have been saying the apostles did too and did not share with the church, and the gnostics are now sharing those "apostolic secrets"....The preeminence is not of tradition, or because of a "chief " apostle (really says the opposite- that Jesus gave equal authority to all the apostles), but simply due to greatness, being ancient and universally known. Hey, if I were Iraneus trying to shoot down the Gnostics, I'd pick Rome too, the center of the world, claiming two of the greatest apostles blood. However ,within the Christian community, I would venture it was not the oldest or any better known or greater than some of the others, but it was Rome.
One more point if I may on Peter and the rock. I have not forgotten your good point that they, the apostles and Jesus, may have been speaking in aramaic(?), and they have the same one word for rock and stone. I like the remembrance of the setting that you bring (they weren't speaking in english). I would like to take it a step further. There they all are ,the disciples and Jesus, alone at the coasts of Caesarea Phillipi, the northern most point of there travels, away from all the action. Jesus reflects with them at where the ministy is at and whom do people think Jesus really is. Again, they are thinking spiritually ,religiously. In that context, "rock" is Jehovah,as in provider, saviour, shelter, stronghold, etc.,etc. in the scriptures. Peter then says Jesus is the "Christ" (saviour, annointed one, stronghold, etc.,etc.). Jesus then addresses Peter by his old worldly(flehly) name,Simon Barjona, and says you did not figure this out on your own (by his flesh), but it was divinely revealed to you by the Father. Then He calls him by his spiritual name, Peter( Stone) and says upon this "rock" I will build my church. This is how the cannonized greek gives it to us ,and the english, properly depicting the divine revelation of Jesus being the Messiah,the Savoir the Christ as ou foundation, the Rock. You and I are Christian because of the father revealing to us whom Jesus is, to the point of our confessing it- "I am a Christian." To your good point that Jesus in aramaic said, "you are a rock ,and upon this rock I will build my church". On quick thought you have a point, but think a little deeper. As noted above, they were in a spiritual mode,and Jesus played with Peters name,why ? and rock is for saviour as noted above. Was he calling Peter saviour ? Of course not. And remember was Peter the only apostle to have this revelation, that Jesus is Messiah, or did Peter just speak first and for the group as so often? Was not the foundation attributable in scripture to all twelve ? The only way this is possible is for Jesus as divinely revealed messiah to be this Rock, which All the apostles later proclaimed. Making Peter here the rock excludes the other apostles from forming the foundation also. to be cont...
To continue, even if he meant Peter as the rock, he was a rock because of his confesson (hence the name change from Simon to Peter). As noted above, there is nothing saying the other apostles didn't believe or confess the very same thing. The other apostles would have thought, "Yes, Peter is a foundation, and so are we all". Try reading it that way ,it does not have to be exclusive for Peter. And remember ,EVERY ,every other place where foundation and apostles is mentioned, it is plural, even 12 in sacred scripture.......Again what was the focus here? It was who is Jesus ,not who is Peter. They were not thinking ,"Wow ,Jesus just made Peter Pope, or "chief" (remember they quarrelled several times after this as to who would be greater). They WERE thinking, "Yes ,it is plain the Father has revealed his son to us -Jesus is Messiah, and WE ALL are going to have a role in spreading the good news-the father will reveal this to our hearers". They were all so focused and probably excited or charged up that Jesus had to tell them to wait and tell no man yet.....Another scenario I read somewhere is that what if Jesus did speak in aramaic and said, "You are rock and upon this rock I will build...". How do you know Jesus did not point to himself when he said, "upon this rock" ? It isn't recorded, but maybe because,of the already understanding of "rock" in scripture indicating saviour. I could see this scenario, especially knowing Peters' brashness and carnality (as evidenced just a mere three verses later in the famous, "Get behind me Satan" (Jesus says this to Peter). It is like Jesus says, "You are Peter, yes, a new creation, but I am the chief cornerstone, and we will do it MY way"...... These are just scenarios to consider. I prefer the way the inspired writers put it down in greek.Alleluia
Did a quick scan of 'Early Church Fathers' "-eight of them up to Iraneus-Found no evidence of Papal doctrine as it is known today. That is, nothing denoting any special office for Peter.But I did scan quickly,did I miss anything ? Thanks
Just thought of something, where you say Christ passed on his authority to men (apostles, prophets, teachers in succession by the laying on hands 9-27)that authority in effect was not for the layman, or else who are we suppose to believe..First of all, with your idea of limited authority(succession to church officers) you still have confusion. As an example you have Soto and Vega differing views on the Council of Trent as did Cathsarinus and Bellarmine....... How is it that from these authorized ranks you have most of your heretics coming from? That is, it was not the lay people, but bible learned, annointed men that that made the majority of heretics ? As far as succession, you have stated ( 9-29) that even if you a bad pope or bishop, succession is carried on, that succession is not broken. Was not Luther annointed ,laid hands on, from a Catholic foundation, going all the way back to the apostles. He also annointed deacons and laid hands on, so is not much of luthereanism have deep roots back to the apostles,because of succession. ? Oh but he was bad ,and we excommunicated him you say. Then why did you not excommunicate bad popes ? Luther did not murder and steal or had concubines. Oh ,he disagreed with church practices and thus was kicked out. So you can be bad ,but if you don't rock the boat (the system) you will be tolerated ? If you challenge practices (the system) you are out.
Some of your scriptures allude to God giving the church officers. How do you know Luther was not one his annointed to reform ? It seems Church "culture" make it very difficult for anyone to correct the "system". Did not Paul correct Peter ? Anyways, if protestants have succession thru Catholics, does it not give foundational credit to Catholicism for that first 1500 years, and further for the shared truths we still have today ?
Do you have any scriptures teaching a centralized aauthority for the church(besides Matt 16). All your scriptures show Jesus to apostles to prophets to deacons, no chief apostle. The one council (in Jereusalem ) had no central figure. Even Iraneus said that the Lord foresaw the trouble with succession (mans' carnality would lead to strife) so the apostles apponted some and told others to appoint bishops ,deacons etc to avoid strife. Why is their no instruction for a chief bishop ? According to early history ,a pope (bishop of Rome) is to annoint the next pope(bishop of Rome). I do not see much strife in succession of offices except for the popes'. Is it because its' office is unscriptural ?
Sorry I forgot to say it, it seems the pope is elected today differently than what Iraneus stated was done earlier.
A few more thoughts on the individual being able to know scripture with authority, as opposed to #562(Baltimore catechism) which says scripture alone can not be our guide(need the church). May I say ,and I hope you agree, 562 did not apply in the old testsament. That is ,scripture indeed was sacred and was in the hands of the layman. It was the responsibility of the parents to educate their children in the Word. It was to be done in the morning, at noon, at night and any teachable moment. There was no seperation as to its' revelations, only dependent on the eagerness of the individual heart. You could be a sheperd boy or a warrior to king to high priest, God was NOT a respecter of persons in this regard. His Word unified the people during the diaspora like nothing else could ,away from their "institution". One thing that you do find is diversity of opinion, both in dogma and practice,(as evidenced by the Sadduceess and the Pharisees, or the Talmud). They were not afraid of diversity. Their "jewishness" did not depend on "institution". There was great unity, however, in the basics (one God, keeper of the chosen Israel, future bearer of the Messiah).....All this said to say that Jesus operated in the same mode, that is, expecting personal responsibility to His Word. Nowhere does he say He was going to do things differently here. He spoke to the people expecting them to be able to understand, indeed challenging them to understand. As a matter of fact most of His speaking was outside the institution and apart from so called leaders, sheperds of the faithful. Does He say anywhere, "Go ask the rabbi and ask him if he aggrees with me before you believe in what I say" ? No, He says judge for yourselves, according to YOUR light -the Word. Do you not have a light from the Lord (do not hide it under a bushel) ? Why would Jesus expect or hope for understanding from his hearers if he did not think they could understand (or at least hope and or pray for it) ? We know Jesus spoke to all, the learned and the unlearned, the office holder and the layman, alike. To be cont.........
To continue thank -you. So we see in the old tetament and with Jesus the Word was a personal responsibilty, that understanding could be had directly, you and the Word. So it continued in the new testamant. Whom did the apostle Paul write his letters to? Was it primarily to the elders, so they could correctly interpet and deliver with a unified authority ? or was it "TO ALL the SAINTS". Again, I do not believe the early church fathers said anything different. In fact some historians state there was a healthy diversity of opinion, yet a strong unity in that they were Christian (faith in a risen savior).....enough of me ,let the Lord speak for Himself: Luke12:54 "He said to the PEOPLE...........Yea ,and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?(vs57)......1Cor10:14 this is to the SAINTS, to ANY who call upon the name of the Lord(1:2)....I speak to you as wise men; judge ye what I say(judge YE judge YE)....2nd Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, wether ye be in the faith, prove yourselves, Know ye not that Jesus is in you..."........1 Thes 5:21 Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.".......1 John4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits.....Acts 17:11 They recieved the word with all readines (from Paul) and searched the scriptures daily, wether those things were so. If the Pope came and told you something would you search it against scripture ? See what a mess has been created. They would double check Paul but we can not double check a pope today..... A lot of Catholic stuff is VERY,VERY powerfully persuasive. I was reading a lot catholic stuff from a historian the other night and I felt myself starting to consider he was right and I was wrong. But that is how a cobra gets his prey. He stangley and uniquely flattens and widens his throat, mesmorizing its' prey and then he strikes. I was mesmorized, but thankfully I found an 150 year old written opposing views, based on scripture and not tradition(which was mesmorizing me), which brought me back to peaceful realty. I was encouraged that he was saying things in very much the same as I am today (The spirit told him the same things He is telling me today, which I am sharing on this blog). I suppose this debate will continue until His return. I do understand your place. Indeed it would be impossible for any Catholic to see things any other way than Catholic, for its' grip is very, very, strong. But I do believe in miracles,and prayers and charity towards all. Alleluia
I reread your first 9-29 entry and you quote Acts 20:28 and claim it to show biblical evidence for a priesthood. Was not priest(s)(hood) used a thousand times in the old testament(Septuaguint) and "elder" many times - both having different greek words, and indeed they were different offices. Yet in the new testament greek you do not see "priests" as an individual office of the church, but you do see "elder". To say "presbyter" means "priest" does not fit biblical usage of the terms involved. Your(Catholic) presbyter (elder) in function is the same as priest in the old testament. Furthermore, you claim the old is a mirror of the new testament. In this case, for Catholics and Anglicans, it is but in error. Indeed,the nation Israel was to be a kingdom of priests - all 4 million of them, coming out of Egypt. In Exodus 19:6 this promise was conditional , if you obey. They did not. Sin entered, they wandered for 40 years and now Aaron and his sons had to be a go between, the "priests" because of sin. Now only a small percentage of Israel were priests, and only one high priest could enter the Holy of Holies. The world would have to wait for a perfect priest, before all believers could enter in and all be "priests". Jesus did come and fullfilled the condition that the early Israelites could not. We are now priests. We are now His temple, church, bride, monstrance. Why would you want to mirror the old ? Priests represent the need for scrifice because of sin. Of the two( priests and elders) we only require elders today. That is why ALL your scripture quotes do NOT use "priests". As stated before, the old testament priest was a forshadow of the perfect priest in Jesus to come. They were not perfect, but their office and garments etc. symbolized the purity necessary to meet with God. Why are you still using symbols when that which they symbolized HAS come ? Why did Jesus say you can NOT put this "new wine" into old wineskins. You misapply the terms "erdicate", "mirror" instead of "foreshadow" and FULFILL, FULLFILL. Fullfilling does not mean erdicate. Come on ,Paul discussed this plenty. Hey, I did not decide that it is a "new" testament ,a "new" covenant, a "new" priesthood, a "new" thing that God has done. But alas, you do have some history and a lot of tradition on your side.....Just like the Jews....changing the intent of Holy Scripture....making Jesus hard to see as he was meant to be seen, just like two thousnd years ago. I am sorry, but I hate that which puts us on different "pages". Lord help us.
Still to discuss:_I have not glazed over your statements on baptism and circumcision, and being saved and born again, and last but not least the "eucharist"...Lord willing next time.
Sorry to backtrack, but in your "church teaching" "wolves in sheep clothing" comments dated 9-9-09 we discussed this new priesthood. "now that which decayeth and is waxed old is ready to vanish away" Hebrews 8:13. I guess that is close to eradicating the old covenant but in full context of Hebrews it is Fullfilled..........."For the priesthood being changed.." Hebrews 7:12......."the law maketh men for priests which have infirmity.."-Hebrews 7:28 Are we still under the law ? If you need a priest you are. No more "sacrifices" are needed, -Heb 9. Christ is our once for all sacrifice. Where there is a priest ,sacrifices closely follow. One thing leads to another. Indeed ,the Eucharist needs a priest, so I am told by tradition. Thank God for Holy Scripture, and the Holy Spirit to divinely reveal.
I was cleaning up on some notes and found this. Augustine did originally say Peter was the rock but later recanted on that position in "The Retractions", Book 1, page 90.
Also, Jerome "Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters, afterwards , when everyone thought that those whom he had baptized were his own, AND NOT CHRIST"S, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be plucked up....scripture is my proof...presbyter and bishop are the same". It seems to me he is CRITICAL of the latter development(head bishop), when carnal nature took over (but for a good cause -unity) Is he not being sarcastic ?
Finally, Pope Gregory first claimed the title "Pontifex Maximus" yet rejected the title "universal bishop" (seems a bit confusing, but understandable when a doctrine strays from scripture). I understand he wrote to John of Constantinople who sought to be called "universal bishop" -"It is very difficult to bear patiently that one who is our brother and fellow bishop should ALONE be called bishop, while all others are despised. But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days of Antichrist are already near ? For he is imitating him(Satan),who, despising the company of angels , attempted to ascend the pinnacle of greatness". (Lib. 4 Ep. 83)......................to Eulogies of Alexandria and Anatasius of Antioch- "None of my predecessors ever desired to use this profane term, for if one patriarch is called universal, it is derogatory to the name of patriarch of others. But far be it from any christian mind to wish to arrogate to itself that which would in any degree, however slight, impair the honor of his bretheren. (Lib. 4 Ep. 80)......."To consent to that impious term is nothing else to lose the faith". (Lib 4 Ep.83)....." What we owe to the preservation of the unity of the faith is one thing, what we owe to the suppression of pride is another. I speak with confidence, for evey one that calls himself, or desires to be called universal priest, is by his pride a forerunner of Antichrist, because he acts proudly in preferring himself to others". (Lib 7 Ep. 154) Quoted from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4 ch. 7 sec. 4).........Seems like the terms Antichrist and Pope were not first attached by "protestants". ...............There is a diffrence in thinking you are "first among equals" or, supreme over all others. I guess Gregory had a different view of his office than that of , say Pope Pius the 9th ( Papal infallibilty).......Not surprising, he may be one of the few "popes" that did not want the office ,in fact begged the emperor(?), yes the emperor, to help him decline ( he was a monk, and replaced many of the churches "beauracrats" with monks- oh, he was not liked for that).
)
Cyprian is another saint who later revised his position, by omitting those phrases of the original version wich were extremely favorable to the roman claims of primacy. Some say he saw the negative friuts of the power struggle ,that indeed Peter was one of twelve apostles with equal dignity and power.(Henry Chadwisk-The Early Church) ..thanks Amber ,I can put my notes away.
Apparently Polycarp did not see Pope Anicetus as supreme, for Polycarp refused to yield to the pope on changing the date of Easter observance for his asian churches.......Later, Pope Victor threatened eastern churches for not changing the day that they celebrated Easter . The bishop of Ephesus refused and continued what had been done since the days of the apostles in Ephesus. Iraneus rebuked Victor..According to some ,Victor did excommunicate anyone in Rome not sticking to his Easter dictate. So much for for allowing different practices. (St. Augustine later had no problem with such different practices).
Pope Zephyrinus was first to claim Mat 16:18 for himself. Is it true that Tertullian called him an "usurper",for speaking as if bishops of bishops ?
Pope Stephen 1st objected to certain baptismal practices in Africa. Bishop Cyprian of Carthage answered that each bishop was supreme in his own diocese, and refused to yield to Stephen. Stephen said baptism forgives sins but DID NOT COMMUNICATE the SPIRIT-very interesting.It seems he believed you were not regenerated at baptism, forgiven yes, but not born again. I guess the church would change that practice, I mean dogma.
The council of Chalcedon (451), gave the Patriarch of Constantinople primacy of the eastern churches, despite the emperors' decree agreeing to Leo's claim of supreme primacy.
So today we have seen historical excerpts from Polycarp, Iraneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and the Council of Chalcedon that challenge current Catholic historical views on papacy. ...We also have an example of church doctrine changing (baptism).
Furthermore ,can you see Peter or Paul excepting from the roman emperor (Theodosius) that church membership be compulsory, forcing conversion filling the churches with unregenerate people ? Can you see them wheeling and dealing with the aristocracy, with kings and princes, making deals, and bringing them in on church heirarchy and policy ? ........ How about this twist. The pope appoints a king (of germanic race). Then the pope beckons this king to invade Italy and defeat the Lombards, and bequeath the conquered land to the "church", the beginning of the papal states (750 A.D.). Can you see Paul being not only bishop but "mayor" of Rome, chief of police, and general of the army ? The twist is ,centuries later, the germanic race would give rise to princes and a reformer that would eventually end the papal states (1870) ( until Mussolini gave the pope 100 acres-Vatican City).......I believe there were quite a few bad popes, but even more, many were deeply consumed with political maneuverings, that had very little to do with the spiritual welfare of the church-night and day from the days of Jesus and the apostles, or even the first 300 years of the church......I know you think the divisions in protestantism are not a good witness, but I can't help but wonder of the witness all the bickering and ugly politics of the church produced all those centuries. I have been reading, "The Lives of the Popes" by Michael Walsh (Catholic historian). It is not pleasant reading. Like I said ,it is not the same today as it was most of catholic history (550 A.D.-1870).
The first three or four centuries produced 5 or 6 bible translations(Greek, Old Syriac,,Peshito Syriac,Old Latin,Coptic,Ethiopian,Armenian and the Vulgate). But it seems with Papal power (5th cent.) translations slowed down. Yes the Vulgate was good, but the possibilty with newly christainized people was for many more. Was the latin bible kept to secure allegiance to Rome?. The numbers speak for themselves. Furthermore ,Pope Innocent 3rd forbade reading the bible in the vernacular (1198)...Hildebrand ordered Bohemians not to read the bible....Clement 2nd (1700) issued a bull against bible reading by laity......Pope Pius(1800) issued a bull against bible societies.....Leo 12 (1821) condemned religious freedom, bible societies and bible translations.....Pius 8th (1829) denounced liberty of conscience and bible societies......Pope Gregory 16 th (1831) condemned bible societies as did Pope Pius 9th ......Today there are over a thousand language trnaslations of the bible. Thanks in part to all those bible societies, and again for the catholic church CHANGING and getting on board with God's program and encouraging bible reading (not forgetting #562 of baltimore catechism-you need the catholic church to explain it to you)
Commenting by HaloScan
