A Protestant view of the Mother of God

[RonTheNewJew]

Unity? We can all stand for the same basic moral principles of the Scrptures, the full Ten Commandments and moral dialy living, without “UNITY” in the corporate sense, the organizational sense. Unity has, in the past centuries most often been used as a drive to get people who disagree with each other, to join with the largest of the religious organizations, regardles of the personal beliefs of individual members or smaller religious groups. Such “unity” is a sham. It is dishonest. it is not based on free will. That kind of drive for “unity” is what led to centuries of persecution of smaller groups who disagreed with the larger ones.

If we are truly Judeo-Christians, believing in the love of Christ, and the peaceful free will with which He dealt with everyone He met, then corporate “unity” is not only not needed, but is a real threat to the Christian religion.

Stephen says that “Those who are against unity are on satan’s side.” If, by unity, Stephen means that he thinks that all churches should unite with Roman Catholicism, as many Protestants see in the prophecies contained in the books of Daniel and the Revelation as the ultimate fulfillment of John’s prophecies concerning the persecution of those who "keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony of Jesus Christ, then I think he does not understand the Revelation prophecies.

What does Stephen think will happen to those who do not choose to unite with his Church? Does he think the Church will try to do something, as it has admitted doing in the past, for example to the Jews, and Protestants by persecuting them through it’s cozy relationships with the governments of the many countries where it is the majority denomination? You may recall that Pope John Paul 11 travelled to Jerusalem and the Wailing Wall in order to apologize for his Church’s persecution of Jews through it’s relations with the various state governments in Europe that hated the Jews, blaming Jews for Christ’s death. What the Jews actually did to Christ was condemn Him, then He was handed over, as He said, “to the pagans” who then tortured Him and crucified Him. Israel was under pagan Roman domination at that time.

That was the first main act in the use of state power by a religious entity to persecute One who disagreed with the selfishness and false piety of the Jewish priests and the Pharisees.

Exactly what does Stephen mean by Unity?

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephen says that “Those who are against unity are on satan’s side.” If, by unity, Stephen means that he thinks that all churches should unite with Roman Catholicism, as many Protestants see in the prophecies contained in the books of Daniel and the Revelation as the ultimate fulfillment of John’s prophecies concerning the persecution of those who "keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony of Jesus Christ, then I think he does not understand the Revelation prophecies.

What does Stephen think will happen to those who do not choose to unite with his Church? Does he think the Church will try to do something, as it has admitted doing in the past, for example to the Jews, and Protestants by persecuting them through it’s cozy relationships with the governments of the many countries where it is the majority denomination? You may recall that Pope John Paul 11 travelled to Jerusalem and the Wailing Wall in order to apologize for his Church’s persecution of Jews through it’s relations with the various state governments in Europe that hated the Jews, blaming Jews for Christ’s death. What the Jews actually did to Christ was condemn Him, then He was handed over, as He said, “to the pagans” who then tortured Him and crucified Him. Israel was under pagan Roman domination at that time.

That was the first main act in the use of state power by a religious entity to persecute One who disagreed with the selfishness and false piety of the Jewish priests and the Pharisees.

Exactly what does Stephen mean by Unity?

You are using the “your church has sinners” argument, and it is fallacious.

First, no one is denying that the Catholic Church has sinners. It is precisely why Christ established His Church - to save sinners. Just because its members sometimes stray, that doesn’t mean that it was not founded by Jesus Christ to teach His infallible truth.

Second, Protestants have unfortunately also killed Catholics. I don’t judge Protestantism (or Catholicism) based upon the conduct of their members. I judge them based upon whether they teach the truth in accordance with Sacred Scripture and Tradition. There is a big difference. If you judge truth by conduct, then you should throw out your Bible, because all its authors were sinners.

Third, why don’t you point out all of the great Catholic saints throughout history as well? If you want to focus on conduct as your litmus test, then the Catholic Church has produced holy men and women par excellence. St. Francis, St. Therese, Mother Theresa, and thousands and thousands like them.

Fourth, if you want to talk about conduct and the preservation of life, the Catholic Church has done more than any other institution to preserve and defend life. It has led the world in this regard, through its teachings about abortion, contraception, homosexuality and other life issues, while many of the Protestant sects have buckled in compromise.
scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#antic

John Salza also had to reply to this type of thing.

Ladies and Gentlemen please notice how Ron selects and rejects what he wishes to reply to. this is because there is much he cannot refute.
please also notice how ron loves to give scriptural qoutes with out chapter and verse.

Now, one more thing the public should take note of is how he has managed to take the scriptural verse in the book of revelation completley out of its context and I am gonna demonstrate to you why the protestents force scripture to make it mean what they want to mean and why they are the people that peter spoke of, people who interpret the scriptures to their own destruction,(2Peter:3:16) this thus concludes why they are a denomination of 30,000 and we are still One holy Catholic and apostolic church.

( Revelation: 12:17 ) Then the dragon was enraged with the woman and went to away to make war on the rest of her children, that is, all who obey Gods commandments and bear witness for Jesus.’’

Before I begin my small explanation, I’d like people to watch out for a particular flaw in Rons eisigesis of the text, protestents take only the literal sense of the word and reject the spiritual sense. he will try to symbolise Mary and spiritualise the woman in the book of revelation as israel or some other thing, but if they only take the literal sense then why do protestents try their level best to take the spritual sense of the book of revelation?

so Ron, because Mary is our mother and Queen of heaven, She is indeed the woman in the book of revelation and we are ‘‘her children’’.

as for unity, Yes all must unite on the one true doctrine that is the Catholic church ( Matt:16:18-20)

but for now, our unity must also be one that is spiritual, and that is of love. we can have these friendly open discussions upon our doctrine, but we must love one another and return to Jesus with our whole hearts instead of fighting one another all the time and be divided which is exactly what the devil wants, he doesnt unite he divides, it was him who divided us in the first place, but Jesus unites ‘‘May they all be one’’ Jn:17:21

God bless and take care.
Stephen <3

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Sorry to have submitted some texts without specific references to the exact Bible locations of them. If you put them into a search engine, you would likely then be given the named text references.

What concerns me most about the last response by Stephen is the word, “must” unite as one. Jesus said “I am the vine. Ye are the branches.” One commentor said that unity should be based on “Doctrine.” While I agree with the statement that Protestantism, at least for the most part, has relio-politicized life matters of real moral significance, and I would add, to their numerical detrimant, at least inside the United States, there are many Protestant denominations which have done no such thing.

Now, within the Catholic Church are to be found much of that same attitude: a kind of mix of pro’s and con’s about gays, abortion, etc. among it’s members. The Catholic Church, where priests who abuse young people sexually is concerned, up until the past decade or two, it’s local leaders often moved such priests around to other locations, thus in effect covering up what such priests had done. When Paul, the Apostle in his letter to Timothy, (First Timothy 3:15 (I believe that is the verse, as Stehentig responded to me with) said that a “Bishop should be the husband of one wife,” why then doesn’t the RCC let it’s younger priests marry? God was the author of marriage. Just because Paul, himself, chose not to marry, was not a command to not marry.

Sex between committed (through marriage) men and women is not sin! Paul gave all kinds of reasons for Church leaders not to marry. But, he made it clear that it was a choice that the particular Church leader should be allowed to make of his own free will.

Indeed, we were all created in the image of God. Our first parents were perfectly created in the image of God, and were without sin. When they sinned by listening to Satan who told them they could do whatever they wanted, right or wrong, and that God would not cause them to “surely die,” that is when the first animal sacrifice, the first step in the Covenant of Grace (the everlasting Covenant) began. Only when man continued to hurt himself or others, was it necessary for God to formalize, to full describe in words that people back then could understand, what His requirements were, and are today.

Christ, in accordance with His own Plan of Salvation, came to earth to rescue us from not only sinning, but from the utter destruction that God will visit upon those who refuse to keep His Laws, Statutes and Judgement, thereby not keeping the Ten Commandments he wrote with His own finger, as seen by Moses. It is the Law that we will all be judged by.
Protestants need to address the issue of the balanced relationship between the Torah, and the spiritual blessings that come from keeping Torah as God, Himself said we should. But, Christ makes it possible for us to keep it because our hearts are broken by His sacrifice, and, thus we want to keep it, because we love Him in return.

 

[Stephentlig]

Sorry to have submitted some texts without specific references to the exact Bible locations of them. If you put them into a search engine, you would likely then be given the named text references.

Yes your correct, but not all of us have a good search engine, it would be rather charitble thing for you to give me book chapter and verse, there are many others who are veiwing the thread, I feel its only right for them also.

What concerns me most about the last response by Stephen is the word, “must” unite as one. Jesus said “I am the vine. Ye are the branches.” One commentor said that unity should be based on “Doctrine.” While I agree with the statement that Protestantism, at least for the most part, has relio-politicized life matters of real moral significance, and I would add, to their numerical detrimant, at least inside the United States, there are many Protestant denominations which have done no such thing.

Yes but that is to their numerical detriment.
again ladies and gentlemen of the forum I have already warned you of Ron’s eisigesis of text in the previous post, and here he does it again ( with no reference either ) on biblical qoute from John 15:5, he hasnt really explained why he qouted the text, which is yet another one of his few errors, but leaves us with the thought of what he could be alluding to. Perhaps he means that Jesus is the vine and that we are the branches in the context of ‘‘because Jesus is the vine, the branches are the different denominations in the world who are loosely connected together by a shared common beleif in the Bible’’.

What Ron fails to include is what Jesus says in the verses that follow that of verse 5.
I shall now provide them for you. John:15:5-6 ‘‘whoever remains in me, with me in him, bears fruit in plenty; for cut off from me you can do nothing; Anyone who does not remain in me is like a branch that has been thrown away—he withers.’’ therefore The branches are his children, and those of his children who fail to remain within him can do nothing and they wither.’’ to be a part of the catholic church is to be living in Jesus, where truth is at its fullness, and those who quite knowingly know its the truth yet do not come into it or quite knowingly know its the truth yet leave it are danger of losing their salvation.

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Pius IX condemned the notion that those outside the Catholic Church have a good hope of eternal life. Entertaining such an idea undermines the Church’s infallible teaching that outside of her there is no salvation. Such a false view results in a wellspring of indifferentism which has already infected the Church and the world today. Pius XI clarified that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church may still be saved, but this is a narrow exception to the divine rule. How many are truly ignorant of the claims of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church? Only God knows, and God alone is the Judge. Pius IX has told us that it is unlawful to proceed to further inquiry about the salvation of those outside the Church. Instead, we continue to labor in the harvest by planting the seed, and leave the growing to God.

---

Now, any catholic that beleives in the sin of abortion, or anything else that is inconsistent with church doctrine on faith and morals is not a catholic ( no matter how hard they proclaim to be one ) but protestent, for they are protest-ing against the Catholic church.

I’ve already told you that I do not judge catholism or protenteism on the conduct of its members but whether or not it teaches me truth in accordance with sacred scripture and tradition, you are still using the ‘‘your church has sinners’’ arguement and I’ve already shown it to be a fallacious one.

.Stephen <3

 

[Stephentlig]

Celibacy is Church Practice, Not Dogma

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church’s practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God’s covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

This Protestant is merely trying to show what and why the Protestants feel as they do about what we consider the RCC’s deification of Mary, with no command of Scripture to do so. But, I keep forgetting that the RCC maintains "Tradition as having as much importance as the Scriptures which came from God, through the Holy Spirit, to the Bible’s authors.

I guess some think that they can go on endlessly adding to what they call, “the Bible.” Or, on the other hand they could decide to accept the religion that Christ left His disciples as just what He commanded at the time He commanded it, and nothing beyond that. That is my position. If Peter added nothing to that religion, and I agree that he did not (he practiced only the religion that He had learned from Christ, taught it to several Churches that were raised up on almost entirely pagan areas, and kept it as his ancestors had kept it. Only, as it was with Jesus at the last Seder, and Paul and the others, it was with Christ as the central Figure in the religion that He had given the ancient Jews, thus without the Temple services and animal sacrifices and circumcision.

I choose to read and understand the Bible as the original authors wrote, or had it written by scribes, and without man’s traditions added to it, that changed what it consistently said as it was received by it’s authors. It has been a good, if sometimes testy discussion. But, I see no reason to continue it. It is a choice between the “received” Scriptures and the combination of Scripture and tradition.

God bless all of you.

 

[PJM]

=RonTheNewJew;5228418]Stephen says that “Those who are against unity are on satan’s side.” If, by unity, Stephen means that he thinks that all churches should unite with Roman Catholicism, as many Protestants see in the prophecies contained in the books of Daniel and the Revelation as the ultimate fulfillment of John’s prophecies concerning the persecution of those who "keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony of Jesus Christ, then I think he does not understand the Revelation prophecies.

Friend this ignores Mt.16:18-20 But what the heck, they just the very Words of our God:shrug:

What does Stephen think will happen to those who do not choose to unite with his Church? Does he think the Church will try to do something, as it has admitted doing in the past, for example to the Jews, and Protestants by persecuting them through it’s cozy relationships with the governments of the many countries where it is the majority denomination? You may recall that Pope John Paul 11 travelled to Jerusalem and the Wailing Wall in order to apologize for his Church’s persecution of Jews through it’s relations with the various state governments in Europe that hated the Jews, blaming Jews for Christ’s death. What the Jews actually did to Christ was condemn Him, then He was handed over, as He said, “to the pagans” who then tortured Him and crucified Him. Israel was under pagan Roman domination at that time.

Friend I’m going to be blunt in my reply. This is the lamest excuse I have ever heard for two reasons.

Clearly and indispuitabily it was the Jewish Leaders taking advantage of the Romans, NOT the other way around. Jews, non-Jews, Christrians ans non-Christians, we are all to blame. He died to Redeem everyone!

But even this point is mute, because it was all of us, including me and you who caused Chrsit Death in fullfillmeny of OT Prophsey. We are all equally to blame!

That was the first main act in the use of state power by a religious entity to persecute One who disagreed with the selfishness and false piety of the Jewish priests and the Pharisees.

Exactly what does Stephen mean by Unity?

What does "unity have to do with the OP question?

 

[Stephentlig]

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.”

As we have discussed, Protestants believe that Christians are to follow the Scriptures alone as their sole source of Christian truth (sola Scriptura). But then why does Saint Paul tell us to follow both the Scriptures and the oral word? Isn’t Paul adding something else to follow in addition to the Bible? Yes he is, because the doctrine of sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine.

Saint Paul is saying that obeying the written tradition (the Scriptures) is not enough. We must also obey the oral tradition. This is the body of teaching that Christ gave the apostles that was not written down (if it were, Saint John says that “even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25). In other words, it’s everything else the Church teaches on faith and morals. We can be thankful for the oral apostolic traditions which have definitively taught us about the Blessed Trinity, the two natures of Christ (human and divine), the union of those natures (hypostatic union), the Filioque (the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), and the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible and what books do not). All of these teachings, and many, many more, are not explicitly taught in the Bible, yet are generally believed by all Christians. To learn more about the oral apostolic tradition, buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) which means “to hand on” from one generation to the next.

Moreover, the Protestant argument is also refuted by the way in which the Church selected the Bible canon. While the last apostle John died around 100 A.D., the Bible was not finally compiled until 397 A.D. The Church was thus required to rely upon the oral apostolic tradition during this 300 year period in order to determine which letters were inspired and which letters were not. The tradition they depended on, of course, did not come from the mouths of the apostles (they were deceased), but from their successors. (There is also no reason to conclude that the Church should listen to the fourth, fifth or sixth generation of apostolic successors, but not to later successors such as those of our day).

We should also note that the apostolic traditions Paul is commanding us to follow in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are not the same as the Pharisaical traditions that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:9. The traditions Jesus condemned dealt with the Old Testament ceremonial rituals and other acts that contravened the New Testament Gospel. So there are certain human traditions that, if contrary to the Gospel, we must reject, and oral apostolic tradition, as Paul commands, which we must accept.

The only other argument the Protestant can make is that, once the Bible was compiled, all oral apostolic tradition was committed to the Scriptures. As a result, the requirement to follow oral tradition ceased. But this they cannot prove from the Bible. There is nothing in the Scriptures that commands us to follow oral tradition until the Bible is compiled, and then to follow the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible). In fact, Jesus never even commanded any of His apostles to write anything down. They were only charged to “preach the Gospel to all creation.” Matthew 28:19. Because the Scriptures are the living word of God which is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Hebrews 13:10), and there is no verse in Scripture that repudiates Paul’s instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we must also obey the oral tradition of the Church as Paul commanded, or we are not being faithful to the Scriptures.

 

[Stephentlig]

Please show me Ron where the Catholic church teaches that we deify Mary?

 

[Stephentlig]

But, I see no reason to continue it. It is a choice between the “received” Scriptures and the combination of Scripture and tradition.

Ron you see no reason to continue it because you are unable to.

 

[CWBetts]

Ron, are you here to criticize Catholicism, and tell us that you are right and we are wrong. or ary here because you have questions and wnat to learn about the faith?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Ron you see no reason to continue it because you are unable to.

It is interesting that you say Catholic tradition trumps the Bible, yet you continue to try to “prove” things from Scripture.

The word in 1 Corinthians 11:2 translated “traditions” is the Greek word paradosis which means “Jewish traditionary law.” There are two sources of “Jewish traditionary law:” the written Torah (given by the pre-incarnate Christ to Moses), and the oral Torah - the writings of the Jewish sages. In Matthew 23:1-3 Christ clearly taught that the writings of Moses (the written Torah) stood firm, while the traditions of the Oral Torah that controlled the lives of the Pharisees and rabbi’s did not stand when they contradicted the written Torah. “To the law (Torah) and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20). Not once in Scripture is there a denunciation of any of God’s traditions - only the traditions of man are denounced, when they oppose Scripture.

The Pharisees accused Jesus and His disciples of “transgressing the traditions of the elders.” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus replied, “Why do ye also transgress the cammandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). Jesus also further said, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9).

This is why Protestants say: Sola Scriptura. But Catholics teach “tradition above Scripture.” Which viewpoint did Jesus take?

God has holy traditions - and these practices are found in Scripture. The word of man is never to supercede the word of God.

It seems you would do well to study the history of the early Christian church. No man was a “pope” before the end of the second century. During the second century there were three Christian Patriarchates, each with a bishop with authority equal to the other two, each Bishop with primary authority over his patriarchal region. It was during the second century that Anicetus (the Bishop of Rome) began trying to force his will upon the Christians of the Patriarchates of Antioch and of Alexandria. It is clear from the writings of Eusebius (wrote at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth centuries) that the issue in the second century AD was over the keeping of Easter Sunday vs the keeping of Passover at the end of Nisan 14. The Christians of the Patriarchate of Antioch (the Christians of Asia Minor) refused to follow the dictates of the Bishop of Rome.

Eventually, Viktor, (the Bishop of Rome after 193 AD) then proceeded to “excommunicate” the Christians in the Patriarchate of Antioch, but they did not recognize such “excummunication” and there was little he could do about it for he had no authority in that area. This proves that Viktor, Bishop of Rome after 193 AD, was not the “pope.” Once Constantine got into the act in the fourth century AD, then the Christians in all three Patriarchates had to listen, since Constantine had civil authority over the areas of all three Patriarchates. That is when the church moved to more “Catholic” ground, especially by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

During the controversy over Easter vs Passover, the Christians of Asia Minor held to the teaching of Scripture, while Anicetus (the Bishop of Rome in 154 AD) held to “the traditions of the Presbyters before him.” This is according to Eusebius, writing nealy 200 years later. So it can be seen where the divergence came from: what is the primary source of doctrine - Scripture or tradition? Scripture and tradition are often at odds. Only the traditions established by God have any validity in the true Christian religion, whatever the denominational title.

If you search Scripture carefully, those traditions that are denounced are the “traditions of men.” The traditions that Scripture denounces are those that oppose what God has established. And since it was the Holy Spirit that inspired the Canon of Scripture, we can be sure that the Holy Spirit will never guide us in opposition to Scripture, for the Holy Spirit is one with God and will never oppose Himself.

Sola Scriptura!

 

[Stephentlig]

The Pharisees accused Jesus and His disciples of “transgressing the traditions of the elders.” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus replied, “Why do ye also transgress the cammandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). Jesus also further said, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9).

Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.

 

[Stephentlig]

as for No ‘‘Pope’’.

As Chief Steward, Peter also becomes the father of the inhabitants of the church. this is why Catholics call the succesor of Peter ‘‘The Pope’’ and his office “the papacy”.

its got nothing to do with bishop or Pope, Peter was indeed the first bishop ( cheif steward ) but it still doesnt take away from his title as the first Pope or take away our right to call him the first Pope, as he became our Holy Father here on earth and Pope simply means father or Papa in Italian.

I suggest you read ‘‘The biblical Basis of the Papacy’’ which refutes every single thing you just said about the Papacy www.scripturecatholic.com

It is interesting that you say Catholic tradition trumps the Bible, yet you continue to try to “prove” things from Scripture.

who said that tradition trumps the Bible?

Point 1: The scriptures are historically reliable ( a point of agreement for all Christians).
Point 2: Therefore we must demonstrate the scriptures reveal that Christ established an infallible church. Mt:16:18-20
Point 3: once the existence of this infallible church is established, we may then conclude that the scriptures are inspired because the infallible church says they are inspired.

Without the existence of the church, we would never know whether or not the Bible is inspired. As Many Catholics point out, it is the Bible *and *the church–both or neither

1Timothy: 3:15 ''The Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe"

Church in greek means ‘‘Hierarchical’’

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi”) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi”). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood (1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1); (2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and (3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1); (2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and (3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

 

[Stephentlig]

This is why Protestants say: Sola Scriptura. But Catholics teach “tradition above Scripture.” Which viewpoint did Jesus take?

Please show me where the Catholic church teaches that tradition is more important than scripture?

Paragraph, 82 of the cathechism of the Catholic church, ‘‘Both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’’

God bless and take care Ron, your in my prayers.

Stephen <3

 

[RonTheNewJew]

When tradition follows Scripture, there is no problem. But when tradition opposes Scripture (is anti-Scriptural), then Scripture MUST prevail.

Here is an example: “By observing the Sunday, in keeping Christmas and Easter, they [the Protestants] are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the pope.” (Our Sunday Visitor, Feb. 5, 1950).

We know from Luke 2:8 that Jesus was born at a balmy time of year, not in mid-winter. Bethlehem sits on a mountain ridge 2350 ft above sea level and only 30 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Because of this, especially in December and January, winter storms blow in off the Mediterranean and bring windy, wet and cold weather to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. For this reason, shepherds around Bethlehem do not keep their flocks out in the field at night from November through February. Comparing Luke 1:5 with 1 Chron. 24:10 and doing some simple calculations, we find that John the Baptist was born around the time of Passover, and Jesus was born six months later, around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. There are at least eight “parallels” between the themes of the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall and the narrative of Jesus’ birth given in Matthew and Luke. The teaching of the Catholic Church that Jesus was born on December 25 is anti-Scriptural, and the keeping of Christmas on December 25 is an “import” from paganism.

Regarding Easter: We know that in the First Century AD and more anciently, this was a pagan festival honoring the pagan fertility goddess who went by names such as Ishtar, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Aphrodite, Venus and even Diana of the Ephesians. In the First Century, Easter was held on the first Sunday following the Vernal equinox, or no later than March 28 on our calendar. Passover was always held at the conclusion of the 14th day of the lunar month that began with the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox. Thus, Passover was never earlier that April 4 on our calendar. You can see that Easter always came before Passover in the First Century. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus was resurrected on Easter Sunday. Historical evidence is clear that the faithful Gentile Christians of Asia Minor (the Patriarchate of Antioch) observed a Messianic Passover (the Lord’s Supper) at the end of Nisan 14, the same as the Jews. They said that this was taught by the disciples, and was according to the Gospel (the record of this is found in the writings of Eusebius). It was the Bishop of Rome that decided to move the celebration of Christ’s resurrection to Sunday, even to Easter Sunday, both to accommodate the pagan converts and to also distance Christians from being seen as Jews. But this was not Scriptural, in fact it was anti-Scriptural, and was strongly resisted by the Christians of Asia Minor for centuries. To the end of the Second Century AD they strongly resisted the Bishop of Rome in this matter, and even by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, they were still opposed but were forced by Constantine with his civil authority to go along with the Bishop of Rome. Again, the Bishop of Rome brought something into the church from paganism, in defiance of Scripture.

The change from worship on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) to worship on the weekly Sunday is also anti-Scriptural. The Fourth Commandment clearly says: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but THE SEVENTH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. In it you shall do no work. . . .” (Exodus 20:8-10). The Catholic Church has even re-arranged the Ten Commandments! Worship on the Venerable Day of the Sun is an import from pagan practice, not a Bible teaching.

In the above quotation from Our Sunday Visitor, there is no appeal to Scripture. Rather, these anti-Scriptural changes are held up as showing the authority of the pope. The Catholic church has long held their traditions to trump Scripture, and this is seen in the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.

Here is the text of a letter written by T. Enright CSSR, of St. Alphonsus’ Church, St. Louis, Missouri in 1905: “Dear Friend, I have offered and still offer $1000 to any one who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound, under grievous sin, to keep Sunday holy. It was the Catholic Church which made the law obliging us to keep Sunday holy. The church made this law long after the Bible was written. Hence said law is not in the Bible. Christ, our Lord empowered his church to make laws binding in conscience. He said to his apostles and their lawful sucessors in the priesthoold “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be binding in heaven.” Mth. 16:19. Mth. 18:17, Luke 16:19. The Cath. Church abolished not only the Sabbath, but all the other Jewish festivals. Pray and study. I shall be always glad to help you as long as you honestly seek the truth. Respectfully, T. Enright CSSR.”

Again, the appeal is to the “power” of the Catholic church to override God’s law. The Catholic church teaches that it’s decisions and traditions override Scripture. This clearly shows that the Catholic Church pays no attention to the authority of Scripture. If it wants to, it changes the word of God at will.

Are you willing to subject yourself to Scripture? Are you willing to bow humbly before the teachings of Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and learn the things of Jesus Christ who set forth His religion (faith and practice) in Scripture?

Sola Scriptura!

 

[CWBetts]

Ron, I will not attempt to answer any more of your ludicrous charges until you answer my question. Are you hear to attempt todraw people away from the Church or to learn? I suspect it is the former.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Dear Brother Betts:
I joined this forum to learn what Catholics think, not necessarily to become one, or to take what they say as truth. As I understood this forum it is a place where people can share with each other, even criticize each other’s statement of belief as long as it is done in a reasonably factual, documented way with respect even if with obvious disagreement, which is allowable as I understand the forum. They can criticize my beliefs, and as you have seen, they have done so. I have attempted to answer their “charges” to the best of my ability.

When Steventig, for example, has disagreed with me, he has at least given the best documented evidence he has. That I can respect, and do. I believe that he respects my right to my beliefs. Mutually speaking, I believe that is what Yeshua (Jesus) taught us all to do.

Yesterday, I said that I felt that both sides had said pretty much as much as they wished, and that I saw no real reason to continue. Someone answered my parting statement, saying that the reason I didn’t favor continuing was because I was “unable to.” I considered that a bit of a personal challenge, and decided to continue, but with greater documentation and specificity.

If there are those who, in reading what I first sent in my answer to the emailed list of topics for discussion, and all of my responses after that, and they wish to search the Scriptures for themselves, as I have entreated people to do, then so be it. There may be even some Protestants who might wish to study further into the Catholic religion, just based on my responses to what others have posted in response to my posted comments.
If that be the case, then so be it.

That is my purpose. What people do in a discussion forum like this, it seems to me, is up to each one of them.

God bless you in any case.

 

[PJM]

=CWBetts;5230062]Ron, are you here to criticize Catholicism, and tell us that you are right and we are wrong. or ary here because you have questions and wnat to learn about the faith?

I suspect that their are a great many “Ron types out there” who are AFRAID to admit that their is a God, and that the RCC is God’s Church, simply because it would mean that they would be accountable and have to change how they are “living” their lives.

Oh my:blush:

Love and prayers,

 

[CWBetts]

I think you are failing to see the difference between “extra-Biblical” and “anti-Biblical” Most Christian practices are not to be found explicitly in the Scriptures. We ore not commanded to refrain from commemorating the Birth of our Lord. Neither are we forbidden from commemorationg the Crucifixion, or the Ressurection. They are neitehr forbidden or defined. THis is where Holy Tradition comes in. It is completely irrelevant that Jesus was not born on December 25th (by your estimation). What is important is that we do celebrate the coming of Christ. Easter coincides with Passover. Which incidentally is only called Easter in English…other languages are varioations of the root from where we get the word “Paschal” A similar thing cna be said of Lent. English Lent–everyone else “40 days” This pretty much destroys your “pagan” thesis. Even Hallowe’en caomes from “All Hallows Eve” or the Eve of All Saints (Nov. 1) Hallowe’en was then actually taken over by the pagans, calling it Samhain, and it is Samhain that modern Hallowe’en celebrations mimic.