A
Ag_not
Guest
I have no idea. I never have. Im not a contributor to any, nor a visitor to many, non-catholic boards. Now, let’s consider the catholic church canonising saints.
Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!!
- Status
N
notsmart
Guest
My understanding is that cannonizing saints merely says they are worthy of emulation.Hi SyCarl
Im so grateful to you for contributing - I was beginning to think I had started an invisible thread - got loads of house work done though
Canonising saints
So whats the beef with that? I have read about a lot of them, and I really dont think any so far were not worthy of emulation.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
You seem a lot like me, yet we find ourselves on different parts of the same fence. Interesting
I’d very much like to take up this discussion, but what I’m worried about is that whatever I might bring up will be met with “but the Church says so, and the Church is right” - I’ve seen it so many times in here…
But I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt
So here’s one:
I believe that the Marian dogmas of the RC church are unbiblical. Do not get me wrong! I believe that Mary was truly blessed, because God chose her for a HUGE task - that of being His vessel in which to enter this world. I greatly admire her obedience and faithfullness to the command she recieved from God.
However:
I believe that the piedestal Mary is put on in the RC church (and eastern church, for that matter) is unbiblical. In my view, the NT does not attribute to Mary the kind of importance that the RC church does. Yes, she’s always spoken of respectfully, but I cannot, even if I try, see what RCs seem to see.
Let’s take Luk 11:27-28 for instance.
It says (quoting from KJV):
“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
There are two things we need to notice here.
1: The word “μενοῦν”. It is that, which is translated as “Yea, rahter”.
The word actually has two possible meanings. One is the one expressed rather archaicly (and rather self-contradictingly??) here. In short, it can either mean “Indeed”, or “On the contrary!”, “Rather!”.
2: The word “δὲ”. This is translated “But”.
It is a particle, and most often used adversatively in the meaning which is here.
Now, let’s look at possible translations:
Either
“…but He said: Indeed…”
or
“…but He said: On the contrary!”/"…but He said: Rather!"
I would say that no 2 makes more sense. It simply doesn’t make sense to me, to use an adversative particle in the beginning of a reply (“but”), and then continue to agree with the speaker. That suggests to me that no 2 is the case here, and if that is so, then Jesus is saying that His mother is not “special” (and please don’t misunderstand me here, as I have underlined what I think of Mary earlier!), but that what’s important is to hear the word of God, and “keep it”
Secondly, I’d point to Matt 12:46-50. Jesus’ mother and brothers (another point, but not the one I’m making right now…) wants to talk to him, and Jesus pretty clearly says, I think, that in God there is no difference between Mary and any other believer with regards to approaching Jesus. If I’m misunderstanding Mary’s role in the RC church, then please tell me, but from what I know, Mary is seen as an intercessor between us and Jesus. That would be contradicted by this verse.
And then, there’s the matter of “brothers”. Did Jesus have biological brothers? Well, the word that’s translated as “brothers” is “ἀδελφοί” (plural). The word has two basic meanings in New Testament Koiné-greek:
1: Brother - which is the son of one’s mother and father.
2: Countryman.
2 is quite out of the question here, so that leaves us with 1.
Now, it is possible that it could have been half-brothers from some time before Joseph married Mary, which would then make them Joseph’s sons, but not Mary’s. They would still be counted as brothers of Jesus.
Now the reason I didn’t include this option in the two listed above is NOT because I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it means “countryman” either. It’s because we hear ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any previous marriage by Joseph to some other woman. And if any of the Evangelists would have included such an information, it would have been Matthew, with his strong basis in a Jewish mindset. Therefore, it seems much, much more than unlikely that this can be the answer…which leaves us back with 1.
I hope you made your way through this post, and look forward to getting your reply. Let’s see if a civil debate can happen on this forum just once
Mark
T
the_phoenix
Guest
What about this Bible verse?
“Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” – Luke 1:48
The Blessed Mother therefore is indeed a Biblical way of describing Mary.
~~ the phoenix
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Well, in theory.
It depends on what CONTENT you put into those words. Because yes, Mary WAS blessed, because she was the vessel by which Our Lord entered this world. She was a great instrument of God. No more, no less. But that doesn’t mean that she should be put on the piedestal she has been.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Btw, what is your response to the rest of my post?
A
Ag_not
Guest
LutherDK - brillant post. Beautifully expressed. I’m thinking about the first post on the formation of saints as Ive found that challenging. Exactly what I wanted - something to make me think and to be honest I havent given a thought to how and why the catholic church canonizes saints and on what authority. Thats a brillant question to
Yours has a lot of layers to it - I’ll get around to it shortly
Meanwhile - everyone else, jump in But remember - any shinanigans or rudeness or lack of civility and you’ll be skating on very thin ice :tsktsk:
N
notsmart
Guest
“why the catholic church canonizes saints and on what authority.”
I told you why- they are worthy of emulation that’s all.
By what authority?
Ohh boy. If that is foggy, the whole kit and kaboodle is going to be.
I told you why- they are worthy of emulation that’s all.
By what authority?
Ohh boy. If that is foggy, the whole kit and kaboodle is going to be.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
You know, it’s not about what Catholic teachings are against Scripture, it’s about how you interpret the Bible. So, for example, someone would say indulgences are against Scripture, or praying to Mary, or praying for the dead, and so on.
T
the_phoenix
Guest
“Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it” calls to mind a couple more Bible verses:
“And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.” – Luke 1:38
What a beautiful example of hearing the word of God and keeping it!
… And keeping it, indeed, for “Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.” – Luke 2:19
Another beautiful example of hearing the word of God and keeping it.
~~ the phoenix
T
the_phoenix
Guest
Your post above seems to me to be saying “yes” and “no” at the same time? Are you saying that while yes, Mary WAS blessed, that no, not all generations should actually call her blessed the way it says we would in the Bible?
~~ the phoenix
A
Ag_not
Guest
“why the catholic church canonizes saints and on what authority.”
I told you why- they are worthy of emulation that’s all.
By what authority?
Ohh boy. If that is foggy, the whole kit and kaboodle is going to be.
Oh all right - but I did tell you I had to satisfy myself and look things up and reflect on them and disect them and cross check them and see if they still make sense at the end of it.
I learned it began with the martyrs - people who died for their faith. I learned the distinction between martyr and confessor and when that was brought in. I learned it was local practices initially rather than universal. I learned about the authority of the local bishops in this area. I learned about the abuses and questionable people put forward. I learned about Rome taking control of the process around the 10th century and making the process more rigorous and acccountable and through. I learned it has happened in the church since the beginning of time and maybe transmorphed from the jewish custom of honoring prophets and others ordained as holy. That we are all called to be saints hut not all will be canonized.
And I got waylaid by all the council referrences from here. Worthy of emulation - well that condenses about 20 paragraphs for me down to the bone.
U
underdog
Guest
The official Roman Catholic understanding of salvation does not line-up with Romans chapter 8. Since you have not been baptized, do you consider yourself to be born from above? Do you believe the Holy Spirit dwells in you?
Romans 8
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
God’s Everlasting Love
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
M
Matariel
Guest
Wherever did you get all these little smilies?
A
Ag_not
Guest
N
notsmart
Guest
Ag_not,
Oh all right - but I did tell you I had to satisfy myself and look things up and reflect on them and disect them and cross check them and see if they still make sense at the end of it.
I learned it began with the martyrs - people who died for their faith. I learned the distinction between martyr and confessor and when that was brought in. I learned it was local practices initially rather than universal. I learned about the authority of the local bishops in this area. I learned about the abuses and questionable people put forward. I learned about Rome taking control of the process around the 10th century and making the process more rigorous and acccountable and through. I learned it has happened in the church since the beginning of time and maybe transmorphed from the jewish custom of honoring prophets and others ordained as holy. That we are all called to be saints hut not all will be canonized.
Worthy of emulation - well that condenses about 20 paragraphs for me down to the bone.
Remember, all christians are saints per the bible. The only difference with formal cannonizations these days, (and not comparing to cases of martyrs, which are a different category- even in the bible!) Martyrs, pray for us!
Is, they tell a story we can learn something from that makes us encouraged, to also emulate, if we can. Just think, so many of them all with different strengths, gifts, that we have a virtual smorgasboard of others to stive to emulate according to the graces and gifts we also have. You could be a cannonized saint also one day. Anyone could.
We should all live our lives as if someone is watching us for instruction.
They all strived to emulate Christ after all.
T
tGette
Guest
In short, the Church canonizes Saints based on miracles attributed to intercessory prayer through them. They do not just randomly canonize people.
W
With_Questions
Guest
Hello:
Proving a certain theology false is a more difficult proposition that it seems. For a given theology to be proven Scripturally false, that theology must be directly contradicted by Scripture.
Let’s pick a few random doctrines found in Protestantland that Catholics do not believe in: say Calvinism, Pre Tribulational Rapture, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide. I bet you can not prove these as Scripturally false.
Proving something Scripturally false is not the same as dragging out your favorite prooftext du jour and claiming this prooftext does the trick (example Romans 3:23 for the immaculate conception or James 2:24 on faith alone). You then have to understand what the expected response to your prooftext will be and then prove that expected response false. And so forth.
Furthermore, just because something is not found in Scripture does not mean it is Scripturally false. Also it is different for something to seem to be against Scripture than for something to be proven as Scripturally false.
In other words, you have to totally understand what it is exactly that you are trying to prove Scripturally false and have such a solid case behind you that there is no way possible that what you are attempting to disprove to be true while at the same time the Bible be God’s inspired word. Good luck with any Protestant trying to prove Catholicism false by that standard. At the same time good luck for Catholics trying to prove any main line Protestant theology as false by that standard.
I go by a different standard. I look for sufficient evidence to believe that something is true. If sufficient evidence is lacking, I just will not believe it. Now that does not mean that I believe this is definitely false, it only means I do not have good enough reason to believe it true.
By that standard, there is a whole boatload of Catholic doctrines that I have insufficient evidence to believe as true. There are enough doctrines in this boat to to make me for one very skeptical about believing that your denomination is exclusively “The Church of Jesus Christ” with everything else being some lesser status,
But that is not what you are asking. So I think I will pass on trying to prove a given point of Catholicism as definitively false.
Proving a certain theology false is a more difficult proposition that it seems. For a given theology to be proven Scripturally false, that theology must be directly contradicted by Scripture.
Let’s pick a few random doctrines found in Protestantland that Catholics do not believe in: say Calvinism, Pre Tribulational Rapture, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide. I bet you can not prove these as Scripturally false.
Proving something Scripturally false is not the same as dragging out your favorite prooftext du jour and claiming this prooftext does the trick (example Romans 3:23 for the immaculate conception or James 2:24 on faith alone). You then have to understand what the expected response to your prooftext will be and then prove that expected response false. And so forth.
Furthermore, just because something is not found in Scripture does not mean it is Scripturally false. Also it is different for something to seem to be against Scripture than for something to be proven as Scripturally false.
In other words, you have to totally understand what it is exactly that you are trying to prove Scripturally false and have such a solid case behind you that there is no way possible that what you are attempting to disprove to be true while at the same time the Bible be God’s inspired word. Good luck with any Protestant trying to prove Catholicism false by that standard. At the same time good luck for Catholics trying to prove any main line Protestant theology as false by that standard.
I go by a different standard. I look for sufficient evidence to believe that something is true. If sufficient evidence is lacking, I just will not believe it. Now that does not mean that I believe this is definitely false, it only means I do not have good enough reason to believe it true.
By that standard, there is a whole boatload of Catholic doctrines that I have insufficient evidence to believe as true. There are enough doctrines in this boat to to make me for one very skeptical about believing that your denomination is exclusively “The Church of Jesus Christ” with everything else being some lesser status,
But that is not what you are asking. So I think I will pass on trying to prove a given point of Catholicism as definitively false.
N
notsmart
Guest
Not really. Yes, there needs to be 2 (I think) miracles to seal the deal.
But, in reality that is not the basis for why they are chosen to be on the list for beatification(only one miracle needed here?) or for cannonization(gotta have 2). Although, its a requirement, and that opens up another can of worms for me in another way. Rather not get slapped for a derail though.
AND, my problem is not random cannonization- but the opposite. Causes take money and time. And, if either are lacking, or entire generations die out while waiting…
A
Ag_not
Guest
Interesting points you made.
Ive heard so many times that the Catholic Church teaches a false Gospel, and that lots of the practices are paganism etc. Youve heard it all before too. That’s why I couched the question as I did - not having sufficient evidence for someone to believe and some of us having a different interpretation and meaning for a text is understandable, and Im hoping we can do a lot a great sharing, but thats a long way off from a declaration that the catholic church flies in the face of the Bible. Who knows, if we achieve nothing else with this thread we might be able to at least all agree that the catholic church holds as true every single word of the Bible and her teachings do not contradict the bible, even if we have differences on everything else. Or am I being too nieve - Status