An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

I am talking about Sola Scriptura: Sola Scriptura believes in the Bible being the rule of faith. If you do not have a defined Bible what will you read to find out God’s thoughts. One can not state the the Bible is self authenticating or that the canon was inspired because each city had a different set of books they thought were inspired for centuries. It wasn’t until the Church defined the Bible that the NT was canonized. Yet Sola Scriptura refutes the Church. It also refutes the Bible created by the Church. You have no canon. Does the Bible list a canon? No. Self authenticaty is clearly not true if one reads any history. Sola Scriputra refutes the Church so the Church can not be the answer.

Tell me where exactly your inspired Bible was defined and by who. Give me a year? Tell me where the OT and NT were canonized?

Oh come now, you know the history of the canon and all of the uproar; the point is I have a Bible.

Your upset is that I reject the teachings of the Church that recognized the Canon, but more than that, you’re upset that you cannot defend much of her doctrine and tradition from the Bible including the OP of this thread.

You disagree with SS; I got that; I’ve been following the posts that you and others have made on the thread on the topic on the sacred scripture forum.

Back to the OP.

 

[PerryJ]

Oh come now, you know the history of the canon and all of the uproar; the point is I have a Bible.

Your upset is that I reject the teachings of the Church that recognized the Canon, but more than that, you’re upset that you cannot defend much of her doctrine and tradition from the Bible including the OP of this thread.

You disagree with SS; I got that; I’ve been following the posts that you and others have made on the thread on the topic on the sacred scripture forum.

Back to the OP.

So I guess you can’t answer where you got your canonnized Bible? You can not show where the Bible supports your SS belief either? We can show our authority via the Bible.

I can defend Marian doctrine very easily. I am not defending when Catholics take it too far and worship Mary. This is not the same as venerating her. Marian doctrine is pretty clear in scripture if one takes the whole Bible into account and interpets it correctly.

As before your Greek didn’t disprove anything. It even reinforced our belief. You showed very clearly that the Greek did support our belief. This is even taking your posting without references. My posting had three references from two published scholars that also showed the Catholic intepretation as correct. Their arguments were even stronger than yours.

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

So I guess you can’t answer where you got your canonnized Bible? You can not show where the Bible supports your SS belief either? We can show our authority via the Bible.

For heaven’s sake, Perry, from the Church.

PerryJ:

I can defend Marian doctrine very easily. I am not defending when Catholics take it too far and worship Mary. This is not the same as venerating her. Marian doctrine is pretty clear in scripture if one takes the whole Bible into account and interpets it correctly.

Then defend the new Gospel which requires belief in the IC for salvation.

PerryJ:

As before your Greek didn’t disprove anything. It even reinforced our belief. You showed very clearly that the Greek did support our belief. This is even taking your posting without references. My posting had three references from two published scholars that also showed the Catholic intepretation as correct. Their arguments were even stronger than yours.

I demonstrated that the grammar for the RC doctrine of the IC, the sinlessness of Mary, and the Biblical doctrine for the Salvation of the believer are all in the perfect, passive, and that they are participles—past action with continuing ongoing results, and that you accept the action of the verb with respect to Mary, but you reject the action of the verb with respect to those who are saved.

Why do you accept one and not the other.

 

[ralphinal]

The different Gospel comes about in the church’s requiring belief in the Marian dogmas for salvation—as you’ve stated they require.

That’s not the Gospel the apostles preached. Paul said that even the apostles, should they preach a different Gospel, were to be accursed. And, I would think that the different Gospel should be rejected as well.

And you did not read the whole post.

They are required NOT because of who they are about BUT because Jesus set up a Church with AUTHORITY on earth. This AUTHORITY includes the ability to define doctrine.

There is no different Gospel. The only different Gospel is held by those who say that there is no such thing as an authoritatice CHurch.

 

[PerryJ]

For heaven’s sake, Perry, from the Church.

Then defend the new Gospel which requires belief in the IC for salvation.

I demonstrated that the grammar for the RC doctrine of the IC, the sinlessness of Mary, and the Biblical doctrine for the Salvation of the believer are all in the perfect, passive, and that they are participles—past action with continuing ongoing results, and that you accept the action of the verb with respect to Mary, but you reject the action of the verb with respect to those who are saved.

Why do you accept one and not the other.

How do you accept some Church authority and not others? Where is it defined in the Bible where the Churches authority stops and SS starts? From my Protestant background this is important. Who is picking and choosing beliefs, belief systems, pastor etc. After years of this I came to the conclusion that it was all based upon the whims of the man in charge and I don’t mean Christ. It is focused on a man’s beliefs. You may try and refute that Catholic’s don’t do the same thing, which I disagree with of course, however, Protestant beliefs are clearly in the man made arena.

I will defend the IC.

Your post showed that Ephesian could be perpetual. It did not state that it was as it is in Luke. My two references agreed with the Church that Luke was perpetual and that Ephesians was not perpetual.

 

[PerryJ]

And you did not read the whole post.

They are required NOT because of who they are about BUT because Jesus set up a Church with AUTHORITY on earth. This AUTHORITY includes the ability to define doctrine.

There is no different Gospel. The only different Gospel is held by those who say that there is no such thing as an authoritatice CHurch.

Just as the Trinity was defined by the Church.

 

[ralphinal]

Just as the Trinity was defined by the Church.

Exact same thing. The Church has the authority to define things related to faith. If you deny one of her dectrines, you are denying her authority, thus putting into jeopardy your salvation.

 

[cfrancis]

You stated you objected to Catholic Marian doctrine as revealed by God by saying:

Yep. Because it isn’t confirmed in apostolic writing.

I asked

To which apostolic writing do you refer?

You replied

The 27.

To which I would ask, why do accept the doctrine of the canon of Scripture when it isn’t confirmed by the NT? Nowhere in the NT do we see an inspired table of contents.

 

[TriuneUnity]

To which I would ask, why do accept the doctrine of the canon of Scripture when it isn’t confirmed by the NT? Nowhere in the NT do we see an inspired table of contents.

Whoever claimed the table of contents was inspired? Watch out for crows landing on your argument

I accept the NT canon because the Church accepts the NT canon.

 

[mark_a]

Is the Christopher West version better for them?

I am not familiar with that version. Do you recommend it? At what age?

 

[eelpis]

I have always had problems with St. Alphonsus’s statements and those of St. Louis de Montfort basically because it obscures your number 1. Yes, intercessory prayer is good but these authors basically say that it is impossible to approach Christ without going through Mary. It in effect makes the sacrifice of Christ redundant or superfluous. It seems that what happens is Christ saved Mary and then Mary saves us through her intercession with Christ. But the scriptures(check 1John) clearly say that we have a mediator in Christ if we sin. There is no intermediary between us and Christ. To say that Mary or the saints are intermediaries between us and Christ I think is to distort the meaning of intercessory prayers of the saints.

As a Syriac Maronite Catholic, I would like to point out that for your #3 and #5 the terms are largely imagery. They are not meant to be dogmatic proclamations. Mary is not dogmatically a second Eve but typologically they are related. The same goes for her as the ‘New Ark’. These are images which explain the faith. Alot of times the fathers of the Church, and the scriptures, spoke by imagery or paradox to explain aspects of the faith.

St Alphonsus and St Louis Marys teachings are recommended by the popes and the Church.
Faith is not hypotheses but facts about supernatural realities, God could have saved us without Mary playing a role in it, but He didn’t. God could have saved us without Jesus as well but he didn’t.

Facts are facts and that’s what we have to deal with.
God saved us Himself and He chose the way to do it.
We have to acknowledge that Gods ways are not our ways.
He choose to come to us by means of Mary.
Without Mary we would not have Jesus.

 

[jimmy]

St Alphonsus and St Louis Marys teachings are recommended by the popes and the Church.
Faith is not hypotheses but facts about supernatural realities, God could have saved us without Mary playing a role in it, but He didn’t. God could have saved us without Jesus as well but he didn’t.

Facts are facts and that’s what we have to deal with.
God saved us Himself and He chose the way to do it.
We have to acknowledge that Gods ways are not our ways.
He choose to come to us by means of Mary.
Without Mary we would not have Jesus.

Could you cut the triumphalism and make a real arguement? You have not offered any defense of the arguement. Whether popes supported it doesn’t make it dogma. One pope said the Greek Christians worshiped demons. Is that a dogma that we must all accept?

God chose to come through Mary, that is right. The problem is that no where in this does it suggest that God also chose to make Mary the mediator between man and Christ so that it is a heirarchy so that Christ saved Mary, and Mary saves us. I am sorry but that kind of thinking smacks of heresy. Just as God chose to come through Mary He also chose that He would be our mediator, not Mary.1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.[1John2]

Does that contradict intercessory prayer? No. Prayer to the saints is good, but it should not be thought of in terms of a heirarchy so that I have to go through Mary to get to Christ. Is this following statement really the official position of the Church in your opinion?And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.”

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

And you did not read the whole post.

They are required NOT because of who they are about BUT because Jesus set up a Church with AUTHORITY on earth. This AUTHORITY includes the ability to define doctrine.

There is no different Gospel. The only different Gospel is held by those who say that there is no such thing as an authoritatice CHurch.

Exact same thing. The Church has the authority to define things related to faith. If you deny one of her dectrines, you are denying her authority, thus putting into jeopardy your salvation.

**Sola Ecclesia: ”the Roman church claims that it has both written, and defined the canon of scripture, and it has spoken and defined what is oral tradition as well; moreover, that church claims, for itself, the right of sole determiner of what both scripture and tradition means; therefore, the church claims an authority that is greater than both scripture, and tradition."

Within that system, how do you discern what’s true?

PerryJ:

How do you accept some Church authority and not others? Where is it defined in the Bible where the Churches authority stops and SS starts? From my Protestant background this is important. Who is picking and choosing beliefs, belief systems, pastor etc. After years of this I came to the conclusion that it was all based upon the whims of the man in charge and I don’t mean Christ. It is focused on a man’s beliefs. You may try and refute that Catholic’s don’t do the same thing, which I disagree with of course, however, Protestant beliefs are clearly in the man made arena.

You’ve switched from one man to many men. How do you discern what’s true?

PerryJ:

I will defend the IC.

PerryJ:

Your post showed that Ephesian could be perpetual. It did not state that it was as it is in Luke. My two references agreed with the Church that Luke was perpetual and that Ephesians was not perpetual.

Sola Ecclesia.

 

[jimmy]

Sandusky, that is a false statement of the Roman view. If you actually want to see how the Church views the relationship between the Church, Tradition, and Scripture then read Dei Verbum. It is a good explanation of the Catholic view and it can be read right off the internet.

Also, if you are going to give a quote you should give the source as well.

 

[ralphinal]

Sola Ecclesia: ”the Roman church claims that it has both written, and defined the canon of scripture, and it has spoken and defined what is oral tradition as well; moreover, that church claims, for itself, the right of sole determiner of what both scripture and tradition means; therefore, the church claims an authority that is greater than both scripture, and tradition."

Within that system, how do you discern what’s true?

To me, the answer is simple.

God knows men better than men do. God knows that, if left to our own devices, we will corrupt anything given to us. Now, we may not corrupt it totally or out of base intentions, but we will corrupt it. If God has a plan for salvation of men, and in some way men are involved (and we are as we are required to spread the Good News), then God would logically put some controlls into place to keep us from corrupting the information.

Many non-CAtholics would say that that is the Bible. This cannot be the only means. IF it was, any beleiver who read it would come to the same conclusions about all theology as every other reader who has the gift of faith. This is not the case. Threefore, I can conclude that there must be another guide on the earth.

So, if we look to the Bible, we see that Jesus established a Church. He says so himself. IF we look at how the Church grew, it was lead from above by Apostles and those chosen to replace Apostles as they died. Each individual Church was to teach the same information as all others. The Apostolic level, now known as bishops, saw to that. Since this is biblical, there should be no reason to dispute it. This now leaves us with TWO guides to faith an morals: the Bible and the Church.

The Church is older than the Bible. The Church, under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, chose the books for the Bible and organised them. The Church exorcised other forms of authority, such as defining the Trinity and combating Heresies, all of which were based on people mis-reading the Bible.

As the Church came first, one could safely conclude that it has primacy over the Bible. As the Church came first, one can also conclude that it has primacy over Tradition. However, these primacies have limits. The Church does not have the ability to alter Scripture. Also, there can be no new revelation binding on all of humanity save that which is deposited in either Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

Wow, that is a long post. I guess that the next question is how do I know which Church is correct? Well, history tells me part of it. No Church that dates from any time other than the first century can be correct. If Jesus founded a Church, it must date from Jesus. That rules out everyone save the EO, the Catholic Church, and the smaller Churches allied with the others. From the studying I have done, the EO have a very, very strong case. However, I keep coming back to the issue of papal authority, which in my opinion Rome can defend beyond what the EO can attack. Also, I prefer the Roman way of thinking to the Greek. It is the Italian in me.

 

[eelpis]

Could you cut the triumphalism and make a real arguement? You have not offered any defense of the arguement. Whether popes supported it doesn’t make it dogma. One pope said the Greek Christians worshiped demons. Is that a dogma that we must all accept?

God chose to come through Mary, that is right. The problem is that no where in this does it suggest that God also chose to make Mary the mediator between man and Christ so that it is a heirarchy so that Christ saved Mary, and Mary saves us. I am sorry but that kind of thinking smacks of heresy. Just as God chose to come through Mary He also chose that He would be our mediator, not Mary.1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.[1John2]

Does that contradict intercessory prayer? No. Prayer to the saints is good, but it should not be thought of in terms of a heirarchy so that I have to go through Mary to get to Christ. Is this following statement really the official position of the Church in your opinion?And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.”

The way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.
That’s true because we got Jesus by means of Mary and not through anyone else.
The common opinion of the recent popes is that grace comes from the Trinity, passes through the sacred humanity of Christ and then through the immaculate heart of Mary and reaches us. Repeated teachings of the fathers and the pope amounts to an authority of ordinary magisterial teaching. I don’t have the quotes right here but St Alphonsus cites the fathers. The recent popes at least up until and including JPII taught the same. Too bad so called ecumenical concerns stand in the way of making this truth more explicit teaching - “the fifth Marian dogma”. Mary is mediatrix of all graces and she is coredemptrix.

 

[fix]

The way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.
That’s true because we got Jesus by means of Mary and not through anyone else.
The common opinion of the recent popes is that grace comes from the Trinity, passes through the sacred humanity of Christ and then through the immaculate heart of Mary and reaches us. Repeated teachings of the fathers and the pope amounts to an authority of ordinary magisterial teaching. I don’t have the quotes right here but St Alphonsus cites the fathers. The recent popes at least up until and including JPII taught the same. Too bad so called ecumenical concerns stand in the way of making this truth more explicit teaching - “the fifth Marian dogma”. Mary is mediatrix of all graces and she is coredemptrix.

Not only that but the proposed fifth dogma is true regardless of whether it is ever elevated to dogmatic status or not.

 

[PerryJ]

***Sola Ecclesia: ***”
You’ve switched from one man to many men. How do you discern what’s true?

Sola Ecclesia.

You can’t answer the question so you try to turn it around on the Catholics. I do not understand why SS people just do not admit they have no source for their revelation, for their theology or the Bible. SS makes up doctrine all the time. Why not just admit it and move on.

SS doctrines are made up and this is apparent by the number of them. What I find most interesting is people that believe in SS always think the other SS theology is incorrect and theirs is correct. Whenever we point out breakdowns in areas of morals etc. the response is “Yes, they misinterpret the Bible. I don’t. I know what it means.” Somehow they think that God looked at them and gave them the knowledge. God personally blessed them with this grace. The other person God just left out. Of course if you ask the other person they think God gave them the personal interpretation and the other person was left out by God. Many good honest Christians are very misguided. It is no fault of their own they are doing the best they can; yet, SS people believe Christ gives the gift of knowledge to some but not others. It just happens that the person responding always thinks it is them with the knowledge!

Wether one admits it or not the core of SS is that God and theology revolves around your world. When in fact it is the opposite. We revolve around God. God is the center. There is one truth. There is one teaching. One must obey God. Not create their own personal interpretation of God. Before someone says that this is what the Catholics do, you know this is not true. We have one teaching and we are to follow it even if this means self sacrifice. A true Catholic does not pick and choose beliefs. They obey Christ to the end. Just admit that the thousands of SS theologies created are man made and you hope that God blessed you with the correct knowledge out of the thousands of options.

 

[cfrancis]

Whoever claimed the table of contents was inspired?

Not I, nor you - it’s simply a statement of fact.

I accept the NT canon because the Church accepts the NT canon.

Which Church? The Catholic Church?

More importantly, here is one doctrine you accept not mentioned in Scripture. Why this exception?

You say you accept the doctrine of the NT canon b/c the Church accepts it.

I say I accept the Marian doctrines because the Church accepts it.

How is your position different than mine?

 

[sandusky]

jimmy:

Sandusky, that is a false statement of the Roman view. If you actually want to see how the Church views the relationship between the Church, Tradition, and Scripture then read Dei Verbum. It is a good explanation of the Catholic view and it can be read right off the internet.

Also, if you are going to give a quote you should give the source as well.

I like the definition—it’s accurate. Sorry, I forgot to list the source; the same thing has said by many, that particular phrasing is from James White.