Ask A Baptist Pastor

[estesbob]

Can you point me to the Apostles, those who gave those oral statements and letters, where they venerated Mary for instance. No? I didn’t think so. We can keep going down this trial, but I don’t think you’ll find the support you would purport for your argument here.

.

Irenaeus

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (*Discourse on the End of the World *1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (*Four Homilies *1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria

“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (*The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria *[A.D. 305]).

“We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God” (*Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops *12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius

“While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled” (*Oration on Simeon and Anna *7 [A.D. 305]).

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid., 14).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (*Catechetical Lectures *10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God” (*Songs of Praise *1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius

“The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (*The Incarnation of the Word of God *8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (*The Virgins *2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz

“If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead” (*Letter to Cledonius the Priest *101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing” (*Against Rufinus *2:10 [A.D. 401]).

“Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God” (*Commentaries on Isaiah *3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation” (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?” (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

“And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh” (*Third Letter to Nestorius *[A.D. 430]).

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema” (ibid.).

John Cassian

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I just read a passage from the wonderful autobiography of the Servant of God, Walter Ciszek SJ on his experiences in the gulag.

Priests would risk their lives for the Holy Mass and others would risk their lives to receive Jesus.

I know that without faith, no explanation is possible. And really falling in love with Jesus in the most Blessed Sacrament is something that comes from the heart and not argument. Anyway, here is a passage:

---

“When I reached the prison camps of Siberia, I learned to my great joy that it was possible to say Mass daily once again. In every camp, the priests and prisoners would go to great lengths, run risks willingly, just to have the consolation of this sacrament. For those who could not get to Mass, we daily consecrated hosts and arranged for the distribution of Communion to those who wished to receive. Our risk of discovery, of course, was greater in the barracks, because of the lack of privacy and the presence of informers. Most often, therefore, we said our daily Mass somewhere at the work site during the noon break. Despite this added hardship, everyone observed a strict Eucharistic fast from the night before, passing up a chance for breakfast and working all morning on an empty stomach. Yet no one complained. In small groups the prisoners would shuffle into the assigned place, and there the priest would say Mass in his working clothes, unwashed, disheveled, bundled up against the cold. We said Mass in draftystorage shacks, or huddled in mud and slush in the corner of a building site foundation of an underground. The intensity of devotion of both priests and prisoners made up for everything; there were no altars, candles, bells, flowers, music, snow-white linens, stained glass or the warmth that even the simplest parish church could offer. Yet in these primitive conditions, the Mass brought you closer to God than anyone might conceivably imagine. The realization of what was happening on the board, box, or stone used in the place of an altar penetrated deep into the soul. Distractions caused by the fear of discovery, which accompanied each saying of the Mass under such conditions, took nothing away from the effect that the tiny bit of bread and few drops of consecrated wine produced upon the soul.

Many a time, as I folded up the handkerchief on which the body of our Lord had lain, and dried the glass or tin cup used as a chalice, the feeling of having performed something tremendously valuable for the people of this Godless country was overpowering. Just the thought of having celebrated Mass here, in this spot, made my journey to the Soviet Union and the sufferings I endured seem totally worthwhile and necessary. No other inspiration could have deepened my faith more, could have given me spiritual courage in greater abundance, than the privilege of saying Mass for these poorest and most deprived members of Christ the Good Shepherd’s flock. I was occasionally overcome with emotion for a moment as I thought of how he had found a way to follow and to feed these lost and straying sheep in this most desolate land. So I never let a day pass without saying Mass; it was my primary concern each new day. I would go to any length, suffer any inconvenience, run any risk to make the bread of life available to these men.”

Fr. Walter Ciszek SJ***

 

[brianwalden]

To say that by my thinking the Bible is infallible therefore the church must be infallible is a false dichotomy. The Bible is infallible but God used men who were themselves quite broken - see Paul - to write it. So by your logic then the Roman Catholic Church is broken and sinful because Peter was broken and sinful. So which is it?

I don’t think the argument being made was that an infallible Bible requires an infallible Church. The problem is that nowhere in our infallible Scriptures is there a table of contents. Since the infallible books don’t list the canon of which books are infallible, we don’t have an infallible way of telling the infallible books apart from rest of the fallible books in the world. Unless there’s an infallible source that can vouch for the canon, our judgment of the validity of the table of contents at the beginning of the Bible could be fallible. Maybe the Book of Revelation isn’t inspired, maybe the Gospel of Judas is, etc. Questions like these were debated for hundreds of years, how do you know the 66 books in your Bible are the right ones?

 

[LionHeart777]

Catholic friends, you think by saying “your interpretation of Scripture” you are refuting something. Quick examination of that. 2 Timothy 3:16-17…

If I MUST show it by the early church as a whole to convince you, you are denying the very Scriptures you claim to hold to. I should be able to convince you by Scripture. And if you will ONLY be convinced by looking at the early church, your heart is hardened and have actually condemned yourself. Look to the Word. Don’t look merely for a “personal interpretation.” Look for the meaning of the text. Therein is found life. Therein is found truth.

2 points:

1. Our Bibles do not have the same books.
2. I have come to an understanding that many of my my former interpretations of Scripture were wrong (OSAS, for example.) One of the 1st things that really planted a seed was a site (Protestant I think) stating that Calvin was the first to teach that a beleiver could not forfeit their salvation. To me, it seems logical that if your interpretations of Scripture are indeed correct, than one should be able to find them in the writings of the earliest Christian writings outside of the NT. Things that I held to, I do not see. So I have come to the conclusion that if Scripture is divorced from Tradition, than one can error.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Can you point me to the Apostles, those who gave those oral statements and letters, where they venerated Mary for instance. No? I didn’t think so. We can keep going down this trial, but I don’t think you’ll find the support you would purport for your argument here.quote]

Not only did scripture venerate Mary but the early Church (before the bible was formed) also.

Scripture:

Luke 1:28, 30 - Angel said to Mary she was: “full of grace, and that she found favor with God”
Luke 1:48 - In Mary Song, she prophecies, “all generations will call me blessed”
Luke 10:40 - Elizabeth said to Mary that she was, “the most blessed among women”

Our marian prayer " **Hail Mary full of Grace **(straight from the bible)
**The Lord is with Thee **
Blessed art thou amongst women (bible again)
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners (also in bible)
Now, and at the hour of our death
Amen

Notice where the prayer points? Oh it points to Jesus? Yes! That’s right!

Full of Grace, for what reason?
Who is with her? The Lord is
Blessed as she prophesised she’d be
But who’s also blessed? Yes, Jesus
Holy Mary is Jesus’ (who is God) mother
praying for each other is biblical

Even the early Church, before the bible was assembled venerated Mary

in the Syrian Church, St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350), says:
"Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother." (Poem to Christ)
And,
"My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate." (Ibid)

Around 390 AD, St. Augustine writes:

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."

Likewise, the Greek Liturgies of both St. Basil the Great (d. 379) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) call Mary “Panagia” (“All-Holy One”) and “Panagiota” (“All-Sinless One”).

If you’re interested in more, try this site

bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

​

 

[brianwalden]

Can you point me to the Apostles, those who gave those oral statements and letters, where they venerated Mary for instance. No? I didn’t think so. We can keep going down this trial, but I don’t think you’ll find the support you would purport for your argument here.

I hope Scripture will suffice.

Gabriel venerating Mary:
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:28)

Elizabeth venerating Mary:
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” (Luke 1:41-45)

Mary declaring that all generations will call her blessed:
And Mary said: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.” (Luke 1:46-48)

And how scary is it that you attribute nothing to God ensuring the Bible came to be as He intended. Telling isn’t it. It wasn’t some tradition, outside of that God, through the Holy Spirit, ensured that what was preserved was that which He wanted us to have. Not that which the Church wanted us to have. Not that which Peter 5 times removed wanted us to have. But God.

I think you’re confused about the claim of Sacred Tradition. The claim of those who believe in it is that Tradition is God’s revelation just as much as scripture is. This Sacred Tradition is not the “traditions of men” warned about in Scripture. Christians who believe in Sacred Scripture believe that “God, through the Holy Spirit, ensured that what was preserved was that which He wanted us to have” just as you do - we believe He did so through Tradition.

Something to consider. The full titles of the four Gospels are The Gospel According to Matthew, etc. They’re not Matthew’s Gospel and Mark’s Gospel, rather each evangelist is recording his version of the one Gospel of Christ. Each Apostle went out preaching Christ’s Gospel, but not all of their versions were recorded in Scripture. One can deduce that the entirety of the Gospel of Christ is larger than what was recorded in Scripture, John says as much: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.” (20:30). Those who believe in Sacred Tradition believe that the entire Deposit of Faith which Christ gave to the Apostles has been preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, not merely what was recorded in Sacred Scripture.

We can get into the points where the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church disagree, but that’s a rabbit trail for this discussion. Another thread and another time perhaps. But one place I’d love to start that discussion is Doctrinal Development - the Orthodox Churches contend that the Roman Catholics are changing the faith as they go, whereas the Orthodox contend they are believing just as the first, fifth, tenth etc. Orthodox believers believed. Plus they don’t believe in the Pope. But again, rabbit trails.

The Orthodox believe in the Pope. They believe he is the Successor of Peter - we disagree about the extent of his authority. That Catholics and Orthodox disagree about a few points of Tradition does not refute that fact that they both believe in Sacred Tradition just as the fact that many Christians disagree on the interpretation of Scripture doesn’t refute the fact that they believe Sacred Scripture is inspired.

You claimed the Catholic Church invented the concept of Sacred Tradition and venerating Mary in the 1500s. If that’s so, how is it that the Orthodox who separated 500 years earlier believe in Sacred Tradition and venerate Mary?

 

[mrclm]

Irenaeus

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

[clip yada yada yada]

You haven’t answered the question Bob. Where in Scripture do the Apostles venerate Mary for instance? You list a bunch of people who support your argument, I can do the same who don’t. That’s why I went back to the Bible - you know, the Word of God.

 

[mrclm]

I hope Scripture will suffice.

Gabriel venerating Mary:
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:28)

Elizabeth venerating Mary:

[clip]

You claimed the Catholic Church invented the concept of Sacred Tradition and venerating Mary in the 1500s. If that’s so, how is it that the Orthodox who separated 500 years earlier believe in Sacred Tradition and venerate Mary?

What we see in scripture regarding Mary and the practices of the modern Roman Catholic Church are vastly different. To say otherwise - be you Catholic or not - is that whole ostrich head in the sand thingy. And that was part of the OP’s point. Perpetual virginity? And so on.

And after all the bashing on the Protestant denominations earlier on, I find it odd that we are now at the point of discussing Catholic denominations. Funny how that works.

The fact that two groups arrive and perpetuate the wrong conclusion isn’t unique. You’d agree that both the Shia and Sunni Muslims are both equally misguided right? (There is actually a 3rd group of lesser known Muslims - the Wahabi) Being passionately wrong doesn’t make a group any closer to the truth.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I’d like to ask you a question:
**Did Jesus–referred as the New Adam in Sacred Scripture–represent all of humanity when he died and rose again? If Jesus only died for the sake of the elect, how come He’s not called the New Noah since Noah saved a select few?
**
Reformmissionary:

1. Catholics tend to defend their faith by saying they** don’t do things they do**. Just saying that isn’t what you are doing doesn’t make it so. Doing is as doing does, not as the doer says. For example, “We don’t worship Mary!” Ok. Let’s talk about what worship is, what the incommunicable attributes of God are, etc. Let’s ask if what is ascribed to Mary is something to be ascribed to God alone or not.

“Christian Worship” article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, “honour”; from worth, meaning “value”, “dignity”, “price”, and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.
There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

In accordance with these principles it will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or even the statue or picture of a saint. There is here no confusion or danger of idolatry, for this worship is subordinate or dependent. The relic of the saint is venerated because of the link which unites it with the person who is adored or venerated; while the statue or picture is regarded as having a conventional relation to a person who has a right to our homage — as being a symbol which reminds us of that person (see Vacant, Diet de théol. cath., s.v. Adoration, and authors cited in bibliography; also ADORATION; IDOLATRY; IMAGES; DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY).

(Source)
Continued next post…

 

[JoeT777]

I read the OP and I’m somewhat amazed, not shocked mind you, just amazed. Except out of curiosity, why would a Catholic want discuss Protestantism as being on the same plane of Truth as the One True Church of Jesus Christ? Catholics are taught and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the nation scripturally known as the Kingdom of Christ, the one true Church of Jesus Christ. The same faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church is the same faith taught by the Apostles.

Many times I hear non-Catholics say that “one religion is as good as another;” The notion is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations, both hold mutually contradictory truths (or obviously they wouldn’t be different denominations), thus both can’t be true. One or both must be wrong. Being in error can’t represent God’s reveled truth, after all, God doesn’t teach error. It would be equally unreasonable to assume that God is schizophrenic teaching contradictory truths to varying groups. From which we can conclude that there is only one True Kingdom of Christ. Thus, those counted among the faithful, “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: … called in one hope …One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” (Eph 4:3-6).

In my perspective the difference between our respective faiths revolves around an element of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism found in the Protestant, while the Catholic is taught an absolute Truth revealed to the Church. When this element of rationalism is applied to the doctrine of Catholic Church it is sometimes called “liberal theology” - not normally a good thing. Protestantism however is different in that it synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions on the premises desired. These often are translated in the spirit of ‘what-feels-good’ must be of the Holy Spirit. Catholicism, on the other hand uses a harmonious understanding of both Tradition and Scripture to teach God’s revealed Truth; of course within the capability of human knowledge.

Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God’s will (I’m referring to the “five solas”). Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886 addressed this issue in 1886 when he said, “Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality.” See Liberalism Is A Sin (link liberalismisasin.com/ ). In Fr. Salvany’s book you’ll find that the term “Liberal” was understood to mean Protestant or other similar forms of rationalizing faith.

Consequently, I find that Protestants hold an inductive reasoning founded on Christian faith, weighing actions on what was once a traditional Catholic moral, discarded or changed long ago as being slow, regressive, and narrow-minded. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments become subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Catholicism brings. Ultimately Protestantism must come in conflict with the Church. Protestantism must require toleration of differing moral precepts. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany seems to support this concept when he states:

“Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic). Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.”

Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law, as opposed to natural law. The liberal trait is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement proxy ethics independent of God’s will, e.g. abortion, devoice etc. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; so it’s no surprise when we hear the refrain “it might be wrong for you but its right for me,” or vice versa. This ideology becomes progressively independent of God’s authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority; this is evidenced by the number of independent non-denominational Christian Churches and Protestant denominations – which is upwards of 30,000 – it was only one in 1520 (maybe 3), within 10-years that number climbed to well over one-hundred. Tracking the liberal history we can see that this autonomous authority over morality becomes asymptotic to atheism. While still holding a Christian caricature, liberalism progresses to the point where God is no longer needed (or wanted); thereby God ceases to exist in the heart and mind.

So you can see why it would seem strange that you would want to give up your freedom of thought to discuss a disciplined faith firmly planted in the Apostles? Or are you simply proselytizing? A kind of rite of passage, bamboozle the faith right out of some dumb Catholic? I don’t think you’ll find many around here.

JoeT

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Continued from my previous post:
As you can see, the honor given to Mary is different from that of God: her honor is subordinate and dependent upon Him. Using the Catholic terminology, it’s reasonable to conclude that if Mary were divine or had any divine qualities, she would be honored with *latria *honor but she’s not. Furthermore, the Church says that any creature/object given latria honor is idolatry. To say that the Church honors Mary as if she were God would mean that Church promulgates the very action it condemns.

 

[ConvertHereYay]

Catholic friends, you think by saying “your interpretation of Scripture” you are refuting something. Quick examination of that. 2 Timothy 3:16-17…

If I MUST show it by the early church as a whole to convince you, you are denying the very Scriptures you claim to hold to. I should be able to convince you by Scripture. And if you will ONLY be convinced by looking at the early church, your heart is hardened and have actually condemned yourself. Look to the Word. Don’t look merely for a “personal interpretation.” Look for the meaning of the text. Therein is found life. Therein is found truth.

We (I converted from protestantism) look to the early Church because Jesus promised to lead his followers into all truth. The early Church doesn’t seem to be southern baptist/emergent/calvinist/etc. We don’t look to scripture alone just as Paul didn’t look to scripture alone in Acts 15.

Please answer the following questions:

1.) Is your denomination the one true church of Jesus Christ? I
2.) What about this church:
marshillchurch.org
The founder attended a Baptist ( your church) seminary but claims to be a mix of Calvin/Luther, etc

3.) You accept Sola Scriptura. So do Presbyterians. They baptize babies. You don’t.
One of you is wrong. How do you justify your right to not baptize the babies in your church?

 

[vera_dicere]

Steve,

I always wonder this of all non-Catholic Christians I meet, but what would it take for you to convert to Catholism?

 

[brianwalden]

What we see in scripture regarding Mary and the practices of the modern Roman Catholic Church are vastly different. To say otherwise - be you Catholic or not - is that whole ostrich head in the sand thingy. And that was part of the OP’s point. Perpetual virginity? And so on.

Says Who? You say scripture and the Catholic Church are vastly different regarding Mary. I say they aren’t. Who’s right? Where do we turn from here? I could just as easily call you an ostrich, but I won’t, it doesn’t prove anything as anyone who disagrees with someone about something can use it. Perpetual Virginity, what about it?

And after all the bashing on the Protestant denominations earlier on, I find it odd that we are now at the point of discussing Catholic denominations. Funny how that works.

You’ve lost me, are you saying the Orthodox are a Catholic denomination? Neither they nor we would say say that. I’m sorry if others have bashed Protestant denominations. I apologize if I’ve done so as well, I don’t believe I’ve done so intentionally.

The fact that two groups arrive and perpetuate the wrong conclusion isn’t unique. You’d agree that both the Shia and Sunni Muslims are both equally misguided right? (There is actually a 3rd group of lesser known Muslims - the Wahabi) Being passionately wrong doesn’t make a group any closer to the truth.

So you’re saying that Catholics and Orthodox arrived at the concept of Sacred Tradition and venerating Mary separately? You claimed Catholics established these in the 1500s. So did the Orthodox develop these ideas independently after the split circa 1000? Or did they do so before the schism when the Church was united? You’re the one who made the historical claim, I’m just trying to make sense of it. We disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, so I was hoping maybe history would allow us to hash out some truth we can both agree on.

 

[mrclm]

So you’re saying that Catholics and Orthodox arrived at the concept of Sacred Tradition and venerating Mary separately? You claimed Catholics established these in the 1500s. So did the Orthodox develop these ideas independently after the split circa 1000? Or did they do so before the schism when the Church was united? You’re the one who made the historical claim, I’m just trying to make sense of it. We disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, so I was hoping maybe history would allow us to hash out some truth we can both agree on.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches share a common ancestry - common church fathers, so it comes as no surprise that they arrive at some of the same conclusions. The Orthodox view of Theotokos while in some ways similar to the Roman view, are not in practice the same. But yes, I find it interesting to say the least that something that was supposedly universally accepted had to be codified at the Council of Trent, which led to further expansion of the authority of tradition.

I’d still like to know, was Martin Luther at fault for the reformation?

 

[mrclm]

And while the Roman Catholics won’t admit it, there are fractions and factions in their church tradition as well (in Protestantism known as denominations). Just because you don’t call them denominations doesn’t mean you aren’t part one. Sure, the whole pride thing of being the “one true church” gets in the way of that, but it is what it is.

The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all claim apostolic succession. There were fractures in 431, 451, and 1054 for example. Luther was just carrying on what was tradition in the Roman Catholic Church in that sense in the 1500’s. There are seven non-Latin, non-Roman ecclesial traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syrian (Chaldean), West Syrian, and Maronite - Protestants would call these denominations. And then you have the Coptic Orthodox Churches, and the list goes on.

 

[Church_Militant]

It wasn’t until 1545 at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church declared for the first time its official position that tradition was to now be equal in authority with God’s Word - the Bible. Once that was done the church had the freedom to add more and more traditions including much of what is now believed about Mary.

I guess you never noticed that councils never define doctrines until they are attacked by errant teachers, which is precisely what Trent had so much work to do refuting the errors of men that the Protestants were passing off as their new winds of doctrines.

That reminds me of Mark Chapter 7 where Jesus gave some very instructive teaching about adding tradition to God’s Word.

I think not. More like Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

It is important to understand that Protestants are not against tradition as long as that tradition is in accord with God’s Word. If tradition contradicts the Bible, you had better start questioning your tradition. The Bible is God’s Word, if it can’t stand on its own then it really doesn’t have God’s power and authority. Everything else must come under that, not along side of that, and certainly not above that.

And that is found where in the Word of God? :dts: Don’t think it is…

It is inconsistent. If it was good enough for 1500ish years there was no need to codify it at that point because everybody already knew about it. Or there is the alternative, which I believe is more likely.

When Luther came along with his errors, (and yes it was his fault) he apparently felt that he knew better than the 1500ish years of the Holy Spirit.
…

Can you point me to the Apostles, those who gave those oral statements and letters, where they venerated Mary for instance.

Sure…right after you show me where the Word of God tells us that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible. It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? and It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

No? I didn’t think so.

Exactly my point. If that concept is not found in scripture, (and it’s not) then you are demanding and unscriptural standard from us and cannot justify it from the Bible that you claim is your authority. Therefore we don’t have to provide you any such proof texts.

We can keep going down this trial, but I don’t think you’ll find the support you would purport for your argument here.

Yeah, you’re right about your beliefs there…http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

You haven’t answered the question Bob. Where in Scripture do the Apostles venerate Mary for instance?

No problem. Let’s start with Our Lord Himself in John 2. Notice that Our Lord calls Mary “woman” which, contrary to n-C error is not term of disdain, but one of great respect, (veneration even…)
1] On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2] Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.
3] When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4] And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
5] His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6] Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
7] Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
8] He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it.
9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
10] and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
11] This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Notice also that His love and veneration of His mother was so great that He actually began his public ministry early at her behest. Amazing! This humble woman entreats God to begin His miraculous ministries sooner than planned, and you ask who venerated the Blessed Virgin?

What we see in scripture regarding Mary and the practices of the modern Roman Catholic Church are vastly different.

Not so at all, as I just showed you. Wishful thinking like yours does not make for good theology or apologetics.

To say otherwise - be you Catholic or not - is that whole ostrich head in the sand thingy.

Actually that is a better description of your own position sir…

I’d still like to know, was Martin Luther at fault for the reformation?

Already answered that…

And while the Roman Catholics won’t admit it, there are fractions and factions in their church tradition as well (in Protestantism known as denominations).

You’re big on wishful thinking aren’t ya? Every rite that is in union with Rome has the same sacraments and valid priesthood and their doctrines and Traditions complement those of the Latin Rite. They bear no resemblance to Protestantism, though I’m sure you wish they did.

 

[JustaServant]

You haven’t answered the question Bob. Where in Scripture do the Apostles venerate Mary for instance? You list a bunch of people who support your argument, I can do the same who don’t. That’s why I went back to the Bible - you know, the Word of God.

You lay your own self-created groundwork of ‘Scripture alone’, and then expect other people to abide by it? SA was NEVER the criteria used for 1500 years before Protestants. Even the ancient Jew knew of no such concept. Why are you asking Catholics to abide by a Protestant creation?

 

[JustaServant]

Where in Scripture do the Apostles venerate Mary for instance?

As per my above post, you’re asking an illogical question. But here is a good start:

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God
Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.

Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1 - the Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling satan. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.

John 2:4, 19:26 - Jesus calls Mary “woman” as she is called in Gen. 3:15. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. This woman’s seed will crush the serpent’s skull.

Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is “parthenos”) will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.

Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God (the “Theotokos”).

Luke 1:28 - “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Luke 1:38 - Mary’s fiat is “let it be done to me according to thy word.” Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

Luke 1:42 - “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.” The phrase “blessed are you among women” really means “you are most blessed of all women.” A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Luke 1:44 - Mary’s voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

Luke 1:46 - Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.

Luke 1:48 - Mary prophesies that all generations shall call her blessed, as Catholics do in the “Hail Mary” prayer. What Protestant churches have existed in all generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions?

Gal. 4:4 - God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary “the woman with the redeemer.” This is because “co” is from the Latin word “cum” which means “with.” Therefore, “co-redemptrix” means “woman with the redeemer.” Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.

Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - the word “saints” (in Hebrew “qaddiysh”) means “holy” ones. So Mary is called Holy, the greatest Saint of all.

Luke 2:35 - Simeon prophesies that a sword would also pierce Mary’s soul. Mary thus plays a very important role in our redemption. While Jesus’ suffering was all that we needed for redemption, God desired Mary to participate on a subordinate level in her Son’s suffering, just as he allows us to participate through our own sufferings.

Luke 2:19,51 - Mary kept in mind all these things as she pondered them in her heart. Catholics remember this by devoting themselves to Mary’s Immaculate Heart and all the treasures and wisdom and knowledge contained therein.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html