An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[PerryJ]

Perry, the Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

The Bible, as a whole, doesn’t say very much about Mary.

I have no difficulty understanding papal infallibility—it’s not that difficult to understand.

Forgive me, Perry, I don’t understand what you’re asking; will you rephrase it?

The Bible does refer to Mary often. With as I believe the correct interpretation.

I was under the impression that Reformers segregate or hold separate the divinty or Christ and the Human Christ. Do you take the Body and Blood? Do you believe in transubstation or some other form of the Body and Blood?

 

[twb1621]

“Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy. Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned. And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” St. Clement Of Rome (“The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians,” c. 96 A.D.)
“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the Truth to examine clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times… For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries…they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)

 

[PerryJ]

“Through Our Lord Jesus Christ our Apostles knew that there would be strife over the office of episcopacy. Accordingly, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those men already mentioned. And they afterwards gave instructions that when those men would fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that those appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards by other acclaimed men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” St. Clement Of Rome (“The Epistle Of Clement To The Corinthians,” c. 96 A.D.)

Is this not the same Clement in the Bible that lived with the Apostles.

 

[sandusky]

Mannyfit75:

Not really. The First Chapter of Luke and the Gospel of John account of the Wedding feast of Cana and, when Mary stands before the foot of the cross when Jesus gave John to Mary as his mother and John as her son.

Same answers as I provided. Even though the accounts are short concerning Mary in the Gospels. Her faith in God and her loyalty to God is very well noticed.

On a side not, not everything that Jesus said and done is written in the entire Gospels. If it did, no book in the world would not be available to contain it.

That’s all true.

Mannyfit75:

From your understanding of infallibility? How do you defined it?

I define it exactly as your church defines it. For me, it’s not a matter of definition, but a matter of faith—I don’t believe it.

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

Following the underlying logic, the Bible says nothing about the canon of Scripture.

Why should it?

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

I was under the impression that Reformers segregate or hold separate the divinty or Christ and the Human Christ. Do you take the Body and Blood? Do you believe in transubstation or some other form of the Body and Blood?

I don’t believe in transubstantiation but in the elements as symbols.

 

[notsmart]

I don’t believe in transubstantiation but in the elements as symbols.

I’m curious if its only a symbol, then why would one feel a need to do it? Wouldn’t that make it a meaningless ritual?

 

[PerryJ]

Why should it?

For Sola Scriputra to work the Bible has to define the Bible. Man cannot define the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible define the Bible. Sola Scripturist truly can not determine what to even read. They do not know what is inspired unless they go back to the Church. This is not Sola Scriptura. When faced with this thought Sola tries to redfine itself that it can accept some traditions; but, not others. This is nonsense and defeats the whole purpose of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t believe in transubstantiation but in the elements as symbols.

You are free to believe not to believe it in, you are not Catholic. Catholics however are required to believe in it. The Church teaches it to be truth based on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Transtubstantiation is definition that somehow explains what happens at the consecration of bread and wine. It is not a new doctrine though.

The Bible in John 6:53-67 teaches that the Jesus’ flesh is real food indeed, and that his blood is real drink indeed. Jesus even said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.” The Jews had a difficulty understanding this and believe that Jesus mean that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, so they left him for good.

As a Catholic, I believe this to be truth. I could not explain in depth how this does happen. John of Damascus, 665 to 749, explains this as plainly as he could saying:

And now you ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought… Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit.

 

[ralphinal]

That’s a different Gospel:Galatians 1:6-9

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!The papacy claims an unbroken line back to Peter and all of the authority that being Peter entailed such that I’ve heard people refer to the Pope as Peter himself.

Paul’s warning doesn’t give you pause?

How is Papal succession and the Authority of the Church a different Gospel? It is not. Jesus set up a Church with a heirarchy. That is clearly in there. I do not see how it is different. If that Church has authority, and Jesus says it did, what is the malfunction?

 

[PerryJ]

I don’t believe in transubstantiation but in the elements as symbols.

Please define. Do you believe the Body and Blood of Christ is only symbols? Or do you believe you have to go to heaven to receive the Body and Blood from heaven direct?

 

[TriuneUnity]

(2) How was Mary oblivious? Perhaps you mean when Jesus was in the Temple, but I think even having a good grasp of the fully God / fully man thing, His disappearance was sort of unexpected. An angel appears to Mary, tells her she’s going to bear the Messiah, the Son of God, and you think she just assumes He’s an ordinary kid? That seems to be taking Sola Scriptura to its logical limit…

Are you going to argue that she knew Jesus was going to do something miraculous with the water? On what basis? Even if she did, what exactly would it be trying to show?

Jesus’ response is anything but “Oh Mary asked something so I will now have to answer her request.”

I understand being annoyed with the extent that some Catholics take the focus on Mary, but to do the 180 degree turn to denigrating the mother of God seems offensive to the chosen of God.

What does her not having any knowledge of the ability of Jesus to perform a miracle in this situation have to do with denigrating Mary?

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU, thanks for the reply to my quesiton:

By your answer, you appear to be saying, while there is no explicit Scriptural evidence for this Christian doctrine, the canon of Scripture, you accept this Christian doctrine in faith, based upon “the ability of God to make his truth known to His people.”

Is my summation fair?

Well, in regards to the Old Testament, Jesus affirmed the canon as being the word of God. In the New Testament, we look to Jesus’ words that the Spirit will guide them into truth and will bring to their minds the sayings of Jesus. Since this is what the apostles did when writing the narratives, we can say those narratives are breathed out by God through His work with the Spirit. Several places in the NT refer to other NT writings as Scripture.

Ultimately, though, yes, if God inspired Scripture to give to His people, He would have providentially facilitated their reception by the Church at large.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Perhaps. But you know, in all my nearly 48 years, I have never once encountered a Lutheran or a Lutheran church who went on record as forcefully condemning works such as On the Jews and Their Lies, or Luther’s comments about getting to heaven by slaughtering peasants, or his opinions regarding polygamy in a positive light.

Or is it only Catholics who should start forcefully rejecting “junk” wholesale, whilst the Protestants can ignore, or even maintain, every questionable doctrine their leaders of churches espouse?

Then I would suggest you look at the Lutheran Synods websites regarding those matters.

 

[TriuneUnity]

For Sola Scriputra to work the Bible has to define the Bible. Man cannot define the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible define the Bible. Sola Scripturist truly can not determine what to even read. They do not know what is inspired unless they go back to the Church. This is not Sola Scriptura. When faced with this thought Sola tries to redfine itself that it can accept some traditions; but, not others. This is nonsense and defeats the whole purpose of Sola Scriptura.

But this is not what Sola Scriptura says, Perry.

 

[PerryJ]

But this is not what Sola Scriptura says, Perry.

It doesn’t state it but it is the reality of the doctrine. For Sola Scriptura to be viable one has to know the canon. How does one come to the canon if one can only support it via the Bible. They can’t. One can not even go back to tradition as there were various list of the Bible. The NT was under more scrutiny then the OT. (Although from this site one would think it was the other way around.) The only place that Sola Scripturist can go to define the Bible and the NT is the Church. Yet they can not go to the Church because Solaist refute the Church. One can not pick and chose what they will and will not accept from the Church. That is illogical.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It doesn’t state it but it is the reality of the doctrine. For Sola Scriptura to be viable one has to know the canon. How does one come to the canon if one can only support it via the Bible. They can’t. One can not even go back to tradition as there were various list of the Bible. The NT was under more scrutiny then the OT. (Although from this site one would think it was the other way around.) The only place that Sola Scripturist can go to define the Bible and the NT is the Church. Yet they can not go to the Church because Solaist refute the Church. One can not pick and chose what they will and will not accept from the Church. That is illogical.

What I meant was, it is not the position of Sola Scriptura that everything must be explicitly supported by the Bible in total absence of tradition and church authority.

 

[notsmart]

What I meant was, it is not the position of Sola Scriptura that everything must be explicitly supported by the Bible in total absence of tradition and church authority.

Another reason people need to realize the difference between liturgical protestants and others. I may not know enough about all the differences, but I am glad I can discern that huge biggie.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Another reason people need to realize the difference between liturgical protestants and others. I may not know enough about all the differences, but I am glad I can discern that huge biggie.

It is an important one at that. The position that Perry is attacking is a distinctly American viewpoint, no older than 200 years. The reformers themselves would not even recognize the position.

 

[cfrancis]

Well, in regards to the Old Testament, Jesus affirmed the canon as being the word of God.

Does that include the deuterocanonical books as well?

In the New Testament, we look to Jesus’ words that the Spirit will guide them into truth and will bring to their minds the sayings of Jesus. Since this is what the apostles did when writing the narratives, we can say those narratives are breathed out by God through His work with the Spirit.

I agree with Jesus’ words, but there is no Scriptural proof that Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, or that his gospel is as Jesus promised, that it is inspired.

Several places in the NT refer to other NT writings as Scripture.

Such as 2 Pt 3:15-16, but such raises the issue of Paul’s letter to the Laodicaeans (Col 4:16) and his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9).

Ultimately, though, yes, if God inspired Scripture to give to His people, He would have providentially facilitated their reception by the Church at large.

It appears, then, you object to the Catholic Church’s position that God has providentially facilitated our reception of Marian beliefs.