An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

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.

Thanks for that, Ralph; however, the question was “how to you discern truth in a system that claims to have written and defined the canon, spoken and defined tradition, and claims for itself the sole right to determine what scripture and tradition mean?"

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

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.

Thanks, Perry. But how to you discern truth in a system that claims to have written and defined the canon, spoken and defined tradition, and claims for itself the sole right to determine what scripture and tradition mean?

 

[PerryJ]

Thanks, Perry. But how to you discern truth in a system that claims to have written and defined the canon, spoken and defined tradition, and claims for itself the sole right to determine what scripture and tradition mean?

Our is in the Bible. Yours isn’t.

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks for that, Ralph; however, the question was “how to you discern truth in a system that claims to have written and defined the canon, spoken and defined tradition, and claims for itself the sole right to determine what scripture and tradition mean?"

Sorry, I should have gone one step farther than I did.

If you accept that Jesus foudned a Church, and that church has authority, and from the Church and her authority we are given scriptures to support her teachings, then is it logical to say that what the Church teaches is the Truth?

Plus, Jesus told us that he would send the Spirit to guide us to all truth. Now, this could not mean only based on Scriptures, otherwise we could not have differing views on what it says. It must mean that the Church, and its followers, would be lead by the Spirit. This means, and Christians held this postion for 1500 years, that the CHurch was guided to prevent errors from creeping in.

There is a disconnect between history and sola scriptura. For some period of time, there were no NT Scriptures, so that means that somethign else had to be the rule of faith. Even when they were in place, there was a longer period of time where the cannon was not fixed. Again, something had to be common amongst all Churches.

Now, I can verify Church teachings with Scriptures. The Catholic CHurch does. THere is a thread on here about being in Christ. One of the posters is showing how he knows that he has faith and that he is Spirit-filled. He has yet to quote Jesus at all. This is not atypical in Non-Catholic Circles. Many non-CAtholics base their faith on a slanted view of Paul without reconciling it to Christ.

 

[sandusky]

Our is in the Bible. Yours isn’t.

You said you’d defend the IC; will you do that today, from the scripture?

 

[PerryJ]

You said you’d defend the IC; will you do that today, from the scripture?

If I have time I will today. If not tomorrow.

Interesting that you place a limit on me that you do not apply to yourself. You do not limit your teaching to the Bible as you know. You took the Bible from the Church.

I always wonder why Catholics should be held to a standard the Protestant do not hold themselves to. As you know you can not prove SS or the Trinity. Why do I have to do something you can’t do? Just curious?

 

[sandusky]

There is a disconnect between history and sola scriptura. For some period of time, there were no NT Scriptures, so that means that somethign else had to be the rule of faith. Even when they were in place, there was a longer period of time where the cannon was not fixed. Again, something had to be common amongst all Churches.

I don’t find a disconnect between history and SS; all of the history of the church is available to anyone to read. I know that I read it, as does the leadership of my church, who operate, separate from the church, a highly-respected seminary, and one of the top-rated 4 year colleges in the country, christian or otherwise, and that history is taught at both institutions.

As to your claim that no NT scriptures were available, that’s false. The writing of the NT was complete with the death of the last apostle, and the writings of the others were completed before their deaths; right?

The apostles knew they were writing scripture, and the church knew their writings as scripture—that’s why they were able to compile a canon.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t find a disconnect between history and SS; all of the history of the church is available to anyone to read. I know that I read it, as does the leadership of my church, who operate, separate from the church, a highly-respected seminary, and one of the top-rated 4 year colleges in the country, christian or otherwise, and that history is taught at both institutions.

As to your claim that no NT scriptures were available, that’s false. The writing of the NT was complete with the death of the last apostle, and the writings of the others were completed before their deaths; right?

The apostles knew they were writing scripture, and the church knew their writings as scripture—that’s why they were able to compile a canon.

From 33 AD to 40 AD, what NT books were present? Even once they were all finished, and I personally hold that it was prior to 70 AD, there were no copiers, fax machines or Fed Ex. Dissimination would have been a slow process. Oral teachings would have been the only logical way to spread the Good News. The Scriptures tell us to hold fast to everything taught to us, by word of mouth or by SCriptures. It also says that the CHurch is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth. Nowhere does the Bible say all you need is the Bible.

I am not quesitoning the credentials that any denomination has. I am saying that sola scriptura in any form would have been foreign to the early Church.

If this were not true, you would not see things like a “trail of blood” being held by some. You cannot write Protestantism into the first 1500 years of the CHurch no matter how hard you try.

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

If I have time I will today. If not tomorrow.

Sorry Perry, I’m not pressuring you; take your time; I’ll check back on the thread. And, if you don’t have time, just say so, I’ll understand that as well.

PerryJ:

Interesting that you place a limit on me that you do not apply to yourself. You do not limit your teaching to the Bible as you know.

What do you mean?

PerryJ:

You took the Bible from the Church.

The Bible is a Christian book—it belongs to those who belong to Christ.

PerryJ:

I always wonder why Catholics should be held to a standard the Protestant do not hold themselves to.

I hold you to the same standard to which I hold myself—the Scripture—you’ve got it backwards.

PerryJ:

As you know you can not prove SS or the Trinity.

All of the teachings of the Church in her history that can be proven from Scripture are adhered to by those who adhere to SS, the Trinity being one of them.

PerryJ:

Why do I have to do something you can’t do?

I’m not sure what you mean?

 

[PerryJ]

Sorry Perry, I’m not pressuring you; take your time; I’ll check back on the thread. And, if you don’t have time, just say so, I’ll understand that as well.

What do you mean?

The Bible is a Christian book—it belongs to those who belong to Christ.

I hold you to the same standard to which I hold myself—the Scripture—you’ve got it backwards.

All of the teachings of the Church in her history that can be proven from Scripture are adhered to by those who adhere to SS, the Trinity being one of them.

I’m not sure what you mean?

You know what I mean. SS is not supported by the Bible and you know it. SS does not define the Bible and as you admitted you took it from the Church. Next you believe in the Trinity which is not defined in the Bible. You hold Catholics to a standard that I have shown now three times you do not follow. Why do you not admit that you do not follow the Bible? Why do you try to make Catholics follow the Bible when you do not. Again I have given you three examples of your faith not following the Bible. How many do you need?

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

From 33 AD to 40 AD, what NT books were present? Even once they were all finished, and I personally hold that it was prior to 70 AD, there were no copiers, fax machines or Fed Ex. Dissimination would have been a slow process. Oral teachings would have been the only logical way to spread the Good News. The Scriptures tell us to hold fast to everything taught to us, by word of mouth or by SCriptures. It also says that the CHurch is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth. Nowhere does the Bible say all you need is the Bible.

That assumes that what the apostles taught orally is different from what they had written, and, that God played the trickster by holding back what was necessary from the written testimony, leaving oral teachings in the hands of those, who by your own admission make a mess of things. I’ll exercise my one scripture-sanctioned boast: I know God, and He didn’t do that.

ralphinal:

I am not quesitoning the credentials that any denomination has. I am saying that sola scriptura in any form would have been foreign to the early Church.

Not true; in fact the church used the OT scriptures extensively, and from them, formulated the idea that the church had replaced Israel, and had inherited all of the promises made by God to Israel—a big mistake, IMO.

ralphinal:

If this were not true, you would not see things like a “trail of blood” being held by some. You cannot write Protestantism into the first 1500 years of the CHurch no matter how hard you try.

Nor would I try to do that; as I say, the church made a huge error in thinking it had replaced Israel, and therefore, created its own system of ritual and works in the form of sacramentalism and sacerdotalism—structures and ritual that had ceased with the arrival of the new covenant of grace.

Here’s an interesting read on the Early Church and Replacement Theology: Israel and the Church

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

You know what I mean. SS is not supported by the Bible and you know it.

Perry, I don’t have time to answer what you’ll reject anyway. So if you’re truly interested, read here on SS, and learn.

PerryJ:

SS does not define the Bible and as you admitted you took it from the Church. Next you believe in the Trinity which is not defined in the Bible.

Same thing on the Trinity; I believe the teaching of the church on the Trinity because the Trinity can be proven from the Scripture; read Bibilical evidence for the Trinity.

PerryJ:

You hold Catholics to a standard that I have shown now three times you do not follow. Why do you not admit that you do not follow the Bible? Why do you try to make Catholics follow the Bible when you do not. Again I have given you three examples of your faith not following the Bible. How many do you need?

You didn’t do a very good job, Perry, as I have no memory of anything substantial that you’ve said that demonstrates that I don’t follow the teachings of the Scripture.

 

[TriuneUnity]

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

Which Church? The Catholic Church?

Yes. Although, I do not believe history shows it was a top-down process. It was very much bottom up. And Church doesn’t equal “only the hierarchy.”

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

I don’t know if I would define the issue of the canon as “doctrine,” but it is quite clearly in Scripture in principle. God reveals His word to His people.

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?

Couple reasons. First, they aren’t clearly taught in Scripture. Granted, they aren’t rejected either but building a theology on negative evidence is never a good thing. Rome doesn’t say they are doctrines, it elevates them to dogma. Meaning they must be believed. This is done without evidence from Scripture and only God can bind the conscience.

 

[ralphinal]

That assumes that what the apostles taught orally is different from what they had written, and, that God played the trickster by holding back what was necessary from the written testimony, leaving oral teachings in the hands of those, who by your own admission make a mess of things. I’ll exercise my one scripture-sanctioned boast: I know God, and He didn’t do that.

Only if you take it to the farthest extreme. The Catholic Church has no teachings that cannot be defended from scripture. Now, they may not make sense to your interpretation, but they can be defended. I agree that the Church cannot have secret knowledge. However, there is no prohibition on some being written and some being oral. That is the tradition that the CHurch came from, after all.

Not true; in fact the church used the OT scriptures extensively, and from them, formulated the idea that the church had replaced Israel, and had inherited all of the promises made by God to Israel—a big mistake, IMO.

SO is this an example of soal scripture gone wrong?

Nor would I try to do that; as I say, the church made a huge error in thinking it had replaced Israel, and therefore, created its own system of ritual and works in the form of sacramentalism and sacerdotalism—structures and ritual that had ceased with the arrival of the new covenant of grace.

Here’s an interesting read on the Early Church and Replacement Theology: Israel and the Church

And this is where we diverge (not on the replacement theology). God instituted the sacrements, not as rituals but as tools to assist us on the journey. It is not like Judaism where you can deny God exists but as long as you do the correct things you are ok. Nor is it Islam where as long as you are not Christian but try really hard, God grades on a curve. You must have faith and understanding first.

 

[PerryJ]

Pope Pius IX in 1854 infallibly defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.

The three points of this statement are:
1)Mary was protected from original sin and the effects of original sin from the first moment of her existence.
2)IC only deals with Mary’s protection from original sin
3)This protection was via the merits of Jesus. She was proactively redeemed by Christ versus retroactively

Genesis 3:15 ”I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel”

God is speaking to Satan and tells him that the woman’s offspring will strike at the serpents head. All Christians believe this is Jesus. The enmity that is between Jesus and Satan is the same enmity that is between the serpent and the woman. This woman must be Mary and as Jesus is not ensnared by the devil also Mary must not be.

Revelation 12:17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why would Satan be angry with Mary if she was as all other people? It is because she was sinless as is Christ. She was sinless by the proactive redemptive of Christ. We will see later why this verse is referring to Mary.

Luke 1:28And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

Verse 29 shows that this salutation was not a normal salutation. It is a salutation giving Mary a new name. This is shown as Mary was not used in the salutation. She was given a new name just as Peter was given a new name, the rock. A new name means that God was giving her a special grace.

In verse 28 we see that the grace was given from the beginning. The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

The refutation of Ephesians is incomplete Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means "he graced (bestowed grace.) Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166.) Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

This title “full of grace” also shows that one is not touched by sin. Sin diminishes grace. To be full of grace one must not have been touched by grace.

How can she be sinless Romans 3:23 states all have sinned. Peter in this verse is speaking of personnel sin versus original sin. If we also believe that it truly includes all then Jesus would have to be included. Paul though here is referring back to Psalm 14 which is David talking about rebellion in Israel. The rebellion includes not just gentiles but also fellow Israelites. In this context he is using the collective all not the distributive all. We know this because he then distinguishes the evildoers. He also refers to the generation of the righteous. This shows that he was using a collective all and not a distributive all.

If we look at Romans 5:12 and 5:18-19 where Paul teaches that men inherit original sin we have three examples that it was not inherited: Jesus, Adam and Eve. There exist exceptions for inheriting original sin. We Catholics believe Mary is the knew Eve and as such would not inherit original sin.

What about the words of Jesus in Luke 11:27-28 ( Mt. 12:46-50 and Mk 3:35)? A woman in the crowd exclaimed: “Blessed is the womb that bore you…” He replied: “Rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Does this show that Mother Mary wasn’t truly blessed as we believe? No, Jesus is teaching that ones grace can grow. Even Mother Mary’s grace could continue to grow as she hears and obeys the Lord. Why is this needed if she is to remain sinless? It is not needed for her; however, it shows her grace or soul could continue to grow.

We next see Mary and the Covenant of the Ark compared in Luke’s gospel. Notice the cloud of God covering both Mary and the Ark. There are more I just listed some.

Luke 1:35 “And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Numbers 9:15 “Now on the day that the tabernacle was reared up, a cloud covered it. But from the evening there was over the tabernacle, as it were, the appearance of fire until the morning.”

Exodus 40:32 “The cloud covered the tabernacle of the testimony, and the glory of the Lord filled it.”

Mary stays with Elizabeth is compared to the ark staying with Obedom. Both are for three months. The keeper of the covenant was blessed. This blessing is for keeping just the word of the Lord not Christ himself.

Luke 1:26 “And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth”

Luke 1:40 “And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.”

2nd Samuel 6:11 – 12 “And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite three months: and the Lord blessed Obededom, and all his household. 12 And it was told king David, that the Lord had blessed Obededom, and all that he had, because of the ark of God. So David went, and brought away the ark of God out of the house of Obededom into the city of David with joy. And there were with David seven choirs, and calves for victims.”

King David, receiving the Ark and Elizabeth receiving Mary ask a similar questions. Not a strong case by itself; however it adds to the case.

Luke 1:43 “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

2nd Samuel 6:9 “And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?”

In addition compare what the Ark contained: the Word of God written on stone, the bread from heaven in the form of manna, and the priestly staff of Aaron; the new ark contains the Word of God enfleshed, the true bread of heaven, and the high priest of the New Covenant.

Revelation also shows a comparison between the Ark and Mary. Some denote the woman as Israel. This does not make sense as in the verse that follows Satan and Jesus are shown. The person referred to in Revelation has to be Mary.

Revelation 11:19-12:1 “And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple, and there were lightning’s, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:”

Revelation 12:3 “And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:

Revelation 12:9 “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”

Revelation 12:5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.”

She brought forth a man child. This is Mary not just Israel as Christ is not the redeemer of just Jews. Jesus is the redeemer of all man and Mary is the New Eve that brings him forth.

Why should we believe in typology? Other examples are Matthew 12:40 Jesus teaches that Jonah’s three days in the belly of the great fish is foreshadowed Jesus three days.
In John 3:14 Jesus says that bronze serpent of Numbers 21:9 symbolized his crucifixion.

There are many more; however, this shows that even Christ used typology.

More telling is the verses specifically about the Ark. God took great care in creating a vessel that was only housing the Ark. What more would he have done to the one bringing Christ into the world. The vessel was made of acacia wood and pure gold. It was to be without stain or defect. This is an important point. It was made without stain or defect! Oza that dared to touch the Ark was instantly killed

2nd Samuel 6:14-16And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God.

Continued

 

[PerryJ]

Interactions with God shows that one has to be clean in the presence of the Lord:

Not even animals could be present when God visited Mount Sinai. The people also had to be sanctified and even had to wash their garments.

Exodus Chapter 19:10-14 10 And he said to him: Go to the people, and sanctify them today, and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments. 11 And let them be ready against the third day: for on the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon Mount Sinai. 12 And thou shalt appoint certain limits to the people round about, and thou shalt say to them: Take heed you go not up into the mount, and that ye touch not the borders thereof: every one that toucheth the mount dying he shall die. 13 No hands shall touch him, but he shall be stoned to death, or shall be shot through with arrows: whether it be beast, or man, he shall not live. When the trumpet shall begin to sound, then let them go up into the mount. 14 And Moses came down from the mount to the people, and sanctified them. And when they had washed their garments

Below “No uncleanness” should be in their camp as it would drive away God.

Deuteronomy 23:14 That which thou art eased of: (for the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thy enemies to thee and let thy camp be holy, and let no uncleanness appear therein, lest he go away from thee.

If nothing unclean can enter heaven why would God touch one that is unclean at birth?

Revelation 21:27 There shall not enter into it anything defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

Although Exodus does not specifically mention cleanliness Moses was not even allowed to see God. How much more would Mary have to be then Moses?

Exodus Chapter 33:18-23 And he said: show me thy glory. 19 He answered: I will show thee all good, and I will proclaim in the name of the Lord before thee: and I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me. 20 And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live.
21And again he said: Behold there is a place with me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. 22 And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my right hand, till I pass: 23 And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see.

As a Catholic I do not need to prove this Biblically; however, from the above verses one can see why Mary is considered to have Immaculate Conception. She is above all except Jesus and although she is a creature she interacts with God as no others have or will. She has to be fully cleansed as shown by the requirements of the Ark. This concept is also shown in Biblical verses such as those in Deuteronomy. She is shown to be the enemy of Satan by Bible verses and this demonstrates that she is beyond original sin. If she was stained by sin she would not be named as an enemy of Satan. She would just be another woman stained and under his power. Mary is shown to be free from sin by one being full of grace. If she was stained by sin she would not be full of grace as sin reduces grace. She is presented a new name which throughout the Bible shows a grace being bestowed.

To the Catholic’s I am sure I left out some proofs. Feel free to add on.

 

[PerryJ]

Perry, I don’t have time to answer what you’ll reject anyway. So if you’re truly interested, read here on SS, and learn.

Same thing on the Trinity; I believe the teaching of the church on the Trinity because the Trinity can be proven from the Scripture; read Bibilical evidence for the Trinity.

You didn’t do a very good job, Perry, as I have no memory of anything substantial that you’ve said that demonstrates that I don’t follow the teachings of the Scripture.

I understand Sola. You can not support it and now you dodge the question. You have not been able to prove any of your points. Take as much time as you like and put together a proof of Sola Scriptura and post. Of course start with the Biblical support that it exist. Next prove the scripture you should be using from scripture.

Not quite good enough on the Trinity. I did as you asked and put down the support for the IC. You do it for the Trinity. Referring to a bunch of verses that allude to the Trinity does not cut it. Make a post that shows that the Trinity is clearly stated in the Bible. You won’t because you can’t and you know it.

Your picking and choosing which Church doctrine you like based upon personal beliefs.

 

[eelpis]

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

Yes because it’s the truth. What’s in the Bible is true not because it’s in the Bible, but because it’s true, that’s why it’s in the Bible. The same with Church teaching, it’s not true because the Church says so, it’s true that’s why the Church says so.

 

[justasking4]

The following is a good reason of why Protestants find the Roman Catholic dogma of the intercession of Mary to be inherently dangerous and, in the example here, utterly blasphemous.

Now I know, I know, it will be defended according to all manner of apologetic attempts to justify this kind of theology in light of Scripture, or tradition, or magisterial decrees. But I would ask your consideration in order to better understand why we feel this must be utterly rejected. From St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The Glories of Mary:

Mary not only assists her beloved servants at death and encourages them, but she herself accompanies them to the tribunal seat of God. (p. 103)
With reason does an ancient writer call her “the only hope of sinners,” for by her help alone can we hope for the remission of sins. (p. 83)
He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary. (p. 94)
But now, if God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him. “And so,” continues the same saint, "no one can be found more fit for this office than Mary, who seizes the sword of divine justice with her own hands to prevent it from falling upon and punishing the sinner. (p. 124)
St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that “when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, then we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour,” and the reason he gives for it is, “that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness.” Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son. (p. 136-137)
And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when “the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary.” (p. 169)
[St. Peter Damian] addresses her in these words: “All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation.”(p. 180)
“At the command of Mary all obey - even God.” St. Bernardine fears not to utter this sentence, meaning, indeed, to say that God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands…Since the Mother, then, should have the same power as the Son, rightly has Jesus, who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though, of course, it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is only so by grace. (p. 181-182)
“Be comforted then, O you who fear,” will I say with St. Thomas of Villanova: “Breathe freely and take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin, who is the Mother of your God and judge, is also the advocate of the whole human race; fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God; most wise, for she knows all the means of appeasing him; universal, for she welcomes all, and refuses to defend no one.” (p. 198)
[Prayer of St. Ephraim:] O Immaculate Virgin, we are under thy protection…we beseech thee to prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil. (p. 273)
The holy Church herself attributes to the merits of Mary’s faith the destruction of all heresies: “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.” (p. 566)

This is an excellent example of Hyper Dulia. Alphonsus Liguori was also a doctor of the church and his writings have the full support of the church.

Do you find in the Scriptures anything like this in regards to Mary?

 

[cfrancis]

Yes. Although, I do not believe history shows it was a top-down process. It was very much bottom up. And Church doesn’t equal “only the hierarchy.”

Does your last comment mean “Church” is a democracy?

I don’t know if I would define the issue of the canon as “doctrine,” but it is quite clearly in Scripture in principle. God reveals His word to His people.

Would a Christian be free to dismiss books of the Bible as not Scripture and still be a Christian? Or could a Christian add books to Scripture and still be a Christian? I do believe the canon of Scripture is a core doctrine.

Couple reasons. First, they aren’t clearly taught in Scripture. Granted, they aren’t rejected either but building a theology on negative evidence is never a good thing. Rome doesn’t say they are doctrines, it elevates them to dogma. Meaning they must be believed. This is done without evidence from Scripture and only God can bind the conscience.

Yet you’ve stated the canon of Scripture is not clearly, explicitly taught in the Bible (ie, there is no mention of what books belong in the Bible).
Doctrine is required to be believed. For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity is a required to be believed to be a Christian.
From the Catholic dictionary:
***DOCTRINE: Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. this teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)

DOGMA: Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. they are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. they may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.) ***

So we have a similar situation re: the canon of the the NT and OT: “they aren’t clearly taught in Scripture. Granted, they aren’t rejected either but building a theology on negative evidence is never a good thing.”