1950 "The year of the assumption"

[TheApologist]

Scripture alone as a definer of faith (“sola scriptura”) is clearly wrong in that the holy spirit works within us to bring us to a closer understanding of the truth. However, just because scripture cannot be said to be absolutely the only source of information about our faith doesn’t mean that you can say that other sources are valid – you’d have to prove that validity first.

And what proves the validity of the Bible? How do we know which books should be in or should be out of the Bible? How do we know the Bible is inspired? How do we know books weren’t left out or put in? It’s obvious-an authority had to establish the canon. Then, obviously, there has to be an authority other than the Bible which exists. If this isn’t true, then you cannot hold that the Bible is inspired or that the number and content of the books in your Bible is correct.
This would make it seem as if the Catholic position were true…that the deposit of faith contains Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

Please read THESE verses, showing that Bible Alone is false, and showing that Tradition has validity(while traditions of men do not). Please read these and tell me that Tradition isn’t valid.

*****Matthew 15:3
He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

*****Mark 7:9
And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

*****Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written

2 Timothy 1:13
Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;

2 Timothy 2:2
and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Peter 1:20
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation

2 Peter 3:15-16
And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

1 Peter 1:25
That word is the good news which was preached to you.

Romans 10:17
So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.

Matthew 23:2-3
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Read THESE accounts from two Early Church Fathers which show that people in those times believed in Bible + Tradition:

“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”
*Fundamental Doctrines *1, preface, 2.
Origen (c. 230 AD)

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian…”
Four Letters to Serapian of Thmius 1, 28
St. Athanasius (360 AD)

Continued on next post…

 

[Church_Militant]

I read your links. I would point out, however, that the amount of time spent out of the Catholic church isn’t a contributing factor to how I perceive your knowledge. I know Baptists who have been in church for more than 60 years, and still don’t even know the basics.

However, please feel free to show me some non-Catholic sources you’ve read to show you that history proves the Catholic church’s views.

Why?

My point is that regardless of what you say. I know what I was taught in the churches that I was part of.

Compared to the Word of God, (all 73 books of it!) and authentic Catholic teaching…non-Catholic theology is in grave error.

Oh geeze…most of Watchman Nee’s books, C.S. Lewis, A. W Tozer, Billy Graham, I did a Mennonite Bible study course, The Navigators courses, Juan Carlos Ortiz, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie Ten Boom. I’ve read Martin Luther, and a whole host of others.

You cannot provide unbiased and accurate sources that refute the historical fact that the Catholic Church is indeed the valid historical descendant of the New Testament church…nor can you provide authoritative texts to prove that what the church teaches today is diametrically opposed to what the New Testament church and the early church believed.

So bring on what you have…it will fall.

 

[TheApologist]

“Withholding baptism from infants” – that’s just a clever rhetorical way of rearranging the statement as to shift the burden of proof. However, I would point out that Christian baptism has it’s origins in Jewish ritual – this ritual was a ceremonial baptism in the Mikvah, which would signify one’s decision to follow a particular way of teaching. This ritual, as far as I know, was not permitted to children. Additionally, the baptism of scripture required one to first profess faith in Jesus as savior (this is undisputable). An infant simply cannot do that, and thus, doesn’t meet biblical criteria for baptism. I would thus argue that baptism of infants would be the teaching not adhered to by early Christians. The restoring of that teaching during the reformation is hardly a man-made tradition.

Actually, biblical we see that baptism is required for entering heaven(John 3:5, Mark 16:16), that children were encouraged to come to Jesus(Mark 10:14, Luke 18:15), AND that baptism has replaced CIRCUMCISION(Collossians 2:11-12) NOT ceremonial baptism. Circumcision was, in the OT, needed, not simply ceremonial. Please show me where in Scripture it is stated that the NT baptism needed someone to profess THEIR faith. Also, please quote the Early Church Fathers showing that infant baptism was frowned upon. Here’s some that encouraged it:

“Baptise first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” *The Apostolic Tradition *21.
St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD)

“the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.”
Commentary on Romans 5, 9.

In 252 AD, the council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision.
Letter 64(59), 2.
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Origen (after 244 AD)

In any case, what about the hundreds of man-made traditions the Catholic church has instituted since the early Christian church? The weekly celebration of the last supper, the canonization of “saints”, the confession of sins to an ordained priest, the rosary and similar instruments of penance, and so forth.

What is so man-made about the “weekly celebration of the Last Supper?” When one of his parishoners came up to him and told him weekly was too much, Scott Hahn(when he was a Presbyterian minister) said that just as you never tire of kissing your spouse(every kiss is meaningful), every time we receive our Lord it has the same meaning.

There’s nothing contrary to Scripture in doing this. In fact, we’re fulfilling Jesus’s commandment to “do this in memory” of Him. You’ll find no majority among the Church Fathers which shows that the Early Church strictly forbid weekly celebration of the breaking of the bread.

The canonization of saints is valid because it comes from Sacred Tradition…not traditions of men.

The thing about confession to a priest. It makes sense. Did or didn’t Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins? How would they know which sins to forgive or retain unless they were told the sins? Doesn’t Jesus give the apostles the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven? Doesn’t this include sins?

If Jesus only meant the APOSTLES to have this power, what were the billions of people after them supposed to do? Simply ask God for forgiveness while not having an apostle-like figure to forgive their sins?

In fact, doesn’t the Bible say “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)
Doesn’t ministry of reconciliation sounds striking like today’s sacrament? Having a ministry where one is reconciled to Christ by shedding their sin. That sounds pretty like the sacrament of reconciliation.

What* about* the rosary? Is it wrong to use images to remind us of God’s Life? Is it wrong to use beads to remember which prayer you’re on when you’re trying to focus on a certain time in Jesus’s Life relating to Mary?

Continued on next post…

 

[TheApologist]

As the trinity is unbiblical, I agree. Discussion of trinitarianism is better done in another thread, however.

The word Trinity may not be found in the Bible, but that does NOT mean it is unbiblical. Did not Jesus say He was one with His Father and His Father one with Him? Besides, the Church has dogmatically declared this in Sacred Tradition.

And if someone denies this “truth” now, they are anathema or something, right? However, in 1949, obviously this was not the case. What’s the difference? Would anyone dare to argue that the truthfulness of belief in the assumption of Mary actually changed in that time period? I surely wouldn’t (I believe it was false, and still is). I doubt you would either (you’d argue that it was true even before the church dogmatized it).

The truthfulness of belief in the Assumption did not change. The requirement to believe in it did change. I wonder- why do you reject the Assumption? Couldn’t God do this? Bring His faithful servant(she did say “yes” to one big job) home body and spirit? Is it not fitting that the Mother of Jesus be special?

The difference then is merely that the Catholic church uttered some words that caused this to become “official” policy. It didn’t change the righteousness of the policy, nor the righteousness of the believer. Instead, it places its claim to power upon the responsibility to follow the Roman church. This responsibility, however, is unproven.

The responsibility to follow Sacred Tradition is proven…by Scripture. The righteousness of a true policy is always in existence. Just because someone isn’t bound to it doesn’t mean that righteousness changes. The righteousness of the believer rests upon his or her obidience to the Word of God- Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

Sure you could – and should. There’s a difference between understanding more about the truth, and changing dogma. Hypothetically – if the concept of Jesus divinity was doubted at some point in church history, would that mean that Jesus actually wasn’t divine, or that belief in that divinity wasn’t required in order for salvation to be obtained?

First of all, salvation is NOT obtained. Salvation is a gift of God. Accepting binding teachings is required for justification. No, it would not mean Jesus wasn’t divine before. Anyone who heard the teachings of the Christians would know that He was divine. It would be a valid teaching before the dogmatic declaration. It just wouldn’t be binding…in other words- to those who doubted the divinity of Christ would be bound to believe in His divinity or be in heresy.
I don’t understand what the stumbling block is. The belief of Jesus’s divinity wouldn’t be binding until it was dogma, but people would still be expected to believe in it nonetheless.
Imagine mathematicians in the early math days who teach their pupils that a squared + b squared = c squared in a right triangle. One student questions…couldn’t a + b squared = c squared?

Suddenly all of the math teachers get together and do an investigation. Then they officially pronounce that in right triangles a squared + b squared ALWAYS = c squared.
From that point on in the math community anyone who said otherwise wouldn’t be a correct mathematician.

I agree. However, the dogmatic assertion that “the Catholic church doesn’t change it’s teachings” doesn’t mean it’s true either.

Please logically demonstrate to me where the Catholic Church changed her teachings.

Was it unanimous among the early fathers? I highly doubt it. Regardless, there have been lunatics who have believed all sorts of nonsense throughout history – this doesn’t mean it’s right.

Please read the Church Fathers. I suggest you do so. Just read the texts without commentary and YOU see what the majority is for every issue.
Something doesn’t have to be a majority to be true. It would just have to have enough assents and not enough dissents to prove something to be true(true that it was held mostly). If many Fathers didn’t even speak of an Assumption, that doesn’t mean they denied it.

Continued on next post…

 

[TheApologist]

But was it believed by all? If it was, there was no reason to define it. If it wasn’t, how do we know that the pope got it right, aside from having faith in him?

How do we know that Jesus was God, or that there is a God that matter, side from having faith in Him? Reason. We’ve reasoned and have come to the biblical, reasonable conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Full Truth. Just as one uses reason to denote the existence of God and the divinity of Christ(if Jesus wasn’t God-incarnate or sent by God, then how can His teachings be true?).

Yes, because as we all know, everyone that was any form of Christian was a Roman Catholic for the first 1500 years following Christ’s death. The Orthodox and other schismatic churches don’t actually exist, and didn’t split away from the Roman church on the basis of differing doctrinal beliefs.

“The Orthodox and other schismatic churches” broke off for COMPLETELY different reasons than Protestants.

Actually, I wonder if you know the real history of your faith.

In short – stop assuming protestants intentionally have decided to invent dogma that is different from the Catholic Church. Open your eyes, and actually try to see things as we see them.

Was not sola scriptura “invented?” If not exclusively to Protestants, then mainly to Protestants. Please show me the biblical or Early Church Father quote which shows sola scriptura is true/was held in the early church.

Thanks for reading the whole thing!

P.S. I used a Bible verse cheatsheet from San Juan Catholic Seminars called the Catholic Verse Finder. I used it to find all those helpful verses.

I’m REALLY, REALLY sorry my post was so long. If I had a blog, I would’ve posted the argument there and linked to it. If I had one…
Again…SORRY! Please read the whole thing. At least attempt to!

 

[estesbob]

I read your links. I would point out, however, that the amount of time spent out of the Catholic church isn’t a contributing factor to how I perceive your knowledge. I know Baptists who have been in church for more than 60 years, and still don’t even know the basics.

However, please feel free to show me some non-Catholic sources you’ve read to show you that history proves the Catholic church’s views.

Well since ALL the soucres pertaining to the Church for the first 1500 years or so are Catholic Sources it would not appear that would not be a every productive route. Can you give us some sources(other than your personal interperation of Scripture) BEFORE the reformation where the core Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelis can be found?

 

[down_under]

What about the fathers whom thought of it as symbolic, not actual? This doctrine is contradictory to those!

This is a simple misunderstanding and only shows your ignorance of the early fathers. You have no idea what a symbol is. You have never heard of plitinus. Or aperantly agustine that followed. In fact there is an acium. If you dont understand agustine look him up in plitinus and see what he ment. plitinus taught 1 world not 2. plitinus taught agustine how to eat the body and blood of christ and NOT be a cannibal. Which was very important because christians were being killed because they were thought to be cannibals. In short a symbol is what it represents it is not representitive. The fathers taught that we are a symbol of God in the creation story. Adam was God in some way he shared in the divine being. The reformers in good faith went back to the fathers and saw all over the place the euchrist is a symbol. They did this without any understanding of what the fathers ment when they used the word symbol. philosophy had changed away from middle platonism. A symbol was now mearly representitive without any real presence.

However we still understand this to this day we just think about it to hard. We watch on tv someone burn a flag and we get upset. Why? it is only cloth. unless by being made into the flag the cloth becomes more than cloth. unless it is more than mearly representitive.

 

[down_under]

Who is JONATHON HUSS?

you got a link. I think I might want to read that one.

 

[down_under]

My guess is this thread should make one read more about what they believe and get them to seek the truth, if your church teaches the truth then “NO HARM” right?

Why would you think that you obviously have never made any serious criticisum of your faith. this post does not make you want to seek the truth. you cant even back up half of what you say with links. You make so many totally unsubstiantied remarks I find this thread ALmost totally hillarious.

 

[down_under]

Bob,
Just because the political RCC squelched people in her opposition doesn’t mean they weren’t around. To think likewise is naive.

I love this one the catholic church now has the universal eraser. Otherwise known as an argument from silence and a weak argument at that.

 

[down_under]

Try going to a web page without a biased bend!

provide one you niny.

 

[down_under]

Good for you have you studied Papal primacy in the first 200 years or Galileo and the incorrect interpretation of scripture by the magisterium? Check um out GOOD reading!

yes yes and hu galileo was prosecuted for trying to reinterpret scripture, papal primacy is all over the first 200 years. I don’t get the last bit but you have yet to substantiate most of the one liners you throw so why should I be suprised.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you kidding me, I can find your own church fathers such as Chrysotom, whom believed in faith alone…

John Chrysostom also wrote:

“He that believes in the Son has everlasting life [John 3:36]… “Is it ENOUGH, then, to BELIEVE in the Son,” someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a PART of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION.” (Homilies on John 31:1)

“If salvation is BY GRACE [Rom 11:6],” someone will say, “why is it we are not all saved?” BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WILL IT; for grace, even though it be grace, saves the WILLING, not those who are NOT willing and who TURN AWAY from it and who constantly fight against it and OPPOSE themselves to it. (Homilies on Romans 18:5)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ahemmm…Clears throat…
How many chapters does the GOSPEL OF JOHN HAVE???

I’d like a link to this…

Myfavoritmartin-

St. John Chrysostom wrote 88 Homilies on the Gospel of John. The quote that was provided to you was from Homily 31. There was no implication that the Gospel of John has 31 chapters.

Perhaps you should answer your own question: why should we take you seriously?

Oh, and that link you requested? Here are all 88 homilies:

newadvent.org/fathers/2401.htm

Perhaps you can spend some time reading them and get back to us with a report on what Chrysostom ACTUALLY taught about sola fide…and not just your hatchet jobs on the texts.

 

[TheApologist]

Hey, hey, hey, now! I’ve heard some uncharitable comments on this thread! Let’s keep it kind, please.

 

[guanophore]

This is where I get stuck when studying Catholicism.

Where is that?

How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to the beliefs of the assumption, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility but, now, you are damned if you don’t believe in it because it was made dogma by the church 1300-1400 years later?

This is a very good question. But, one must keep in mind that many were saved before Mary ever died, right? And many people have been saved who knew only parts of the truth. God is not limited in who He saves.

God has given the Divine Deposit of Faith to the Church. Those who refuse to accept this Faith…how CAN they be saved?

Whether you call it doctrine or dogma doesn’t change that fact. I have come very close to joining the Catholic Church, but these issues have, I admit, been stumbling blocks.

You mean, the teaching authority of the church?

By the way, I don’t think it’s charitable to call someone “ignorant” especially if you have a good answer as you did. Just answer in love. Most of us are just trying to understand the Catholic faith by coming here.

Ignorant just means lack of knowledge. You are lacking in knowledge. However, there is probably a better way of sayin it. Glad you are here, glad you are trying to understand.

 

[exoflare]

Guys, it should be pretty clear by now that the OP is only here to antagonize. Don’t waste your time on jokers like this… there are a lot more constructive ways to spend your time.

 

[guanophore]

Are you kidding me, I can find your own church fathers such as Chrysotom, whom believed in faith alone…

It is amazing how you can read every other line of this, and disregard the ones in between!

HERE YA GO…

“Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it.** For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only**. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works” (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2:8, vv. 10-11)

The golden mouthed preacher is saying that people come to baptism to be saved. This is what was taught in the church for the first1500 years. Baptism saves. It is an act of faith, during which the saving grace of Christ is applied to the believer unto salvation. He is also not excluding good works, just pointing out that they are based in faith first.

I’VE tons more but this should suffice…
So much for 1500 years later eh???

It does not suffice. Chrysostom was a Catholic Priest, and therefore, fervently believed in the sacraments of the church. You can’t pretend that he didn’t by focusing on a few verses in a homily that suit your fancy. This is off topic in this thread.

… my core beliefs started 1500 years after Christ…**YOUR **St John proves otherwise…I encourage you to read Chrysotom regarding salvation and justification…

In admitting that St. John Chrysostom is ours (Catholic), you are also saying that you have left the one true church, and no longer can claim connection to him, or his teachings.

 

[guanophore]

Here is more of what Gregory believed…
Satan will be saved:

“A certain deception was indeed practised upon the Evil one, by concealing the Divine nature within the human; but for the latter, as himself a deceiver, it was only a just recompense that he should be deceived himself: the great adversary must himself at last find that what has been done is just and salutary, when he also shall experience the benefit of the Incarnation. He, as well as humanity, will be purged.” (The Great Catechism, 26)

I think you may have misunderstood this. Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess. That will not necessarily mean they are saved. Everyone will be judged by fire (purged). All humanity and all the heavenly beings. That does not mean all will be saved. The lake of fire is also a purging.

 

[PC_Master]

I still fail to see how anyone has shown proof of the assumption as being required, rather than supposed.